Rosenblatt v Man Oil Group S.A [2016] EWHC 1382 (QB) (13 April 2016)

Rosenblatt v Man Oil Group S.A [2016] EWHC 1382 (QB) (13 April 2016)

The proviso in the retainer agreement did not automatically entitle the claimant to charge hourly rates upon the assumptions being superseded; implied terms required the claimant to notify the defendant and provide an informed opportunity to renegotiate or terminate before departing from the fixed fee. The claimant was only entitled to charge hourly rates for work done after 15 June 2012, when proper notice and information were provided.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1382
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Rosenblatt; Defendant/appellant: Man Oil Group S.A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Appeal From Decision of Master Leonard
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Retainer Agreements, Fixed Fee Arrangements, Implied Terms, Solicitor Client Relationship, Assessment of Costs
Contract Law Solicitors' Costs Retainer Agreements Fixed Fee Arrangements Implied Terms Solicitor Client Relationship Assessment of Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosenblatt

Claimant/respondent

Man Oil Group S.A.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Appeal From Decision of Master Leonard

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of a solicitor's retainer agreement regarding fixed fee and right to revisit fees
  2. 2 Whether notification and informed opportunity to renegotiate fees is required before departing from fixed fee
  3. 3 Whether claimant entitled to recover fees above fixed fee prior to 15 June 2012

Ratio Decidendi

The proviso in the retainer agreement did not automatically entitle the claimant to charge hourly rates upon the assumptions being superseded; implied terms required the claimant to notify the defendant and provide an informed opportunity to renegotiate or terminate before departing from the fixed fee. The claimant was only entitled to charge hourly rates for work done after 15 June 2012, when proper notice and information were provided.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's fees before 15 June 2012 limited to fixed fee of £92,500 plus disbursements
  • Detailed assessment of claimant's claim for fees after 15 June 2012 to proceed on indemnity basis by reference to hourly rates in 7 March 2012 letter