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The proviso in the retainer allowing the claimant to 'revisit fees' upon assumptions being superseded does not automatically entitle the claimant to charge hourly rates; instead, the claimant must notify the defendant and provide sufficient information to allow the defendant an informed opportunity to agree a new fee basis or terminate instructions. Only after such notification and opportunity does liability for additional fees at the hourly rate crystallise.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1382 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Rosenblatt; Defendant/appellant: Man Oil Group S.A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master Leonard's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Retainer Agreements, Fixed Fee Arrangements, Implied Terms in Contracts, Solicitor Client Costs, Notification Requirements for Fee Changes
Contract Law Solicitors' Costs Retainer Agreements Fixed Fee Arrangements Implied Terms in Contracts Solicitor Client Costs Notification Requirements for Fee Changes

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosenblatt

Claimant/respondent

Man Oil Group S.A.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master Leonard's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was entitled to depart from a fixed fee arrangement and charge hourly rates
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was required to notify the defendant before revisiting fees
  3. 3 Whether the master correctly implied terms into the retainer agreement regarding notification and agreement of new fees

Ratio Decidendi

The proviso in the retainer allowing the claimant to 'revisit fees' upon assumptions being superseded does not automatically entitle the claimant to charge hourly rates; instead, the claimant must notify the defendant and provide sufficient information to allow the defendant an informed opportunity to agree a new fee basis or terminate instructions. Only after such notification and opportunity does liability for additional fees at the hourly rate crystallise.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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