Firm terminated retainer “without notice or good reason”


Closing down: Firm failed to find insurance

A law firm’s decision to terminate its retainer without notice to the client – because it was closing down – was unreasonable and it could not claim the fees due before then, the High Court has ruled.

It said the firm had left its client in the lurch during an important time in his case, which involved a freezing order imposed on all of his personal and business bank accounts.

The appeal in Gill v Heer Manak Solicitors [2018] EWHC 2881 (QB) concerned solely the question of whether the defendant law firm had good reason to terminate its retainer without notice because it was closing at the end of December 2013 after failing to secure professional indemnity insurance.

Under changes to the assigned risks pool that year, firms that had not obtained insurance by 1 October were given 90 days to do so or effect an orderly wind-down.

The closure came a week after a case management conference in Mr Gill’s matter which set out

The claimant’s file was passed on to another firm to which the conducting fee-earner had moved, but the client was only told of this on 4 February 2014.

The Heer Manak retainer provided: “We may decide to stop acting for you only with good reason, for example, if you do not pay an interim bill or comply with our request for a payment on account. We must give you reasonable notice that we will stop acting for you.

“If you or we decide that we will no longer act for you, you will pay our charges on an hourly basis and expenses.”

In June 2016, following an unsuccessful attempt by the new firm to include Heer Manak’s fees in its own bill, Heer Manak delivered a bill seeking total costs of just under £31,000.

At first instance, Master Simons found that Heer Manak had acted reasonably because it had done what it could in the situation.

Mr Justice Walker, sitting with Master Haworth as assessor, found that the claimant client had been left “in the lurch” by Heer Manak, facing “very substantial litigation with a considerable amount of money at stake” and much work to be done by the end of April 2014.

It was accepted on behalf of the firm that the objective test for reasonableness involved looking at the point view of both sides, and balancing their interests, and Walker J said Master Simons’ had failed to consider the position from Mr Manjit Gill’s point of view.

“As it seems to me, in this regard the master erred in law,” he ruled.

Emphasising that the firm had filed “no relevant factual evidence”, the judge said there was no reason to think that the firm could not have closed in an orderly manner, as others did: “The course it took, giving Mr Manjit Gill no notice at all, can hardly be described as ‘orderly’.”

Walker J rejected the suggested that the letter of 4 Feburary was satisfactory: “There was no indication that the transfer made of the file was to a firm which could be expected to have the expertise necessary to advise Mr Manjit Gill.

“I add, although it is not necessary to my decision, that it is difficult to see that the firm had any authority to transfer the file in the way that it apparently did.

“More generally, however, the submission gives no weight to the potential difficulties for a person in Mr Manjit Gill’s position. He was left without cover during a period when there might have been significant developments in the litigation, and in any event when a tight timetable had been imposed at the case management hearing on 20 December.

“Termination of the retainer without notice occurred during the holiday season. I have no doubt that a reasonable observer would have appreciated well before 27 December that termination without notice would risk putting in jeopardy Mr Manjit Gill’s ability to comply with that timetable.

“For all these reasons I conclude that the master was wrong to hold that the retainer could be terminated with no notice.

“That being so, it necessarily follows that in the present case the firm was not entitled to terminate the retainer and cannot claim the fees which it sought in the proceedings before the master.”

Deep Blue Costs, the sister costs firm to Checkmylegalfees.com, acted for Mr Gill.




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog

18 October 2018
Claire Stockford

An analogue decision? Google defeats attempt at consumer ‘class action’

In an eagerly awaited judgment, the High Court handed down its ruling in Richard Lloyd v Google LLC on 8 October. It seems clear that there is a degree of reluctance to permit group litigation which will not materially benefit consumers. That being said, it is hard to ignore the increased possibilities of group litigation in the context of corporate data breaches, particularly following the implementation of GDPR earlier this year.

Read More