Rosenblatt v Man Oil Group S.A

Rosenblatt v Man Oil Group S.A

The proviso in the retainer did not automatically entitle the claimant to charge hourly rates upon the fixed fee assumptions being superseded. The claimant was required to notify the defendant of its intention to revisit fees, provide accurate information about accrued and anticipated costs, and give the defendant an informed opportunity to agree a new basis or terminate the retainer. Only after such notice and opportunity, and the defendant's decision to continue, did liability for hourly rates crystallise, which occurred on 15 June 2012.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Rosenblatt; Defendant/appellant: Man Oil Group S.A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Master Leonard
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitor Client Retainer, Fixed Fee Agreements, Implied Terms in Contracts, Assessment of Costs
Contract Law Legal Costs Solicitor Client Retainer Fixed Fee Agreements Implied Terms in Contracts 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosenblatt

Claimant/respondent

Man Oil Group S.A.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Master Leonard

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of a solicitor's retainer with fixed fee and hourly rate provisions
  2. 2 Whether the claimant could depart from the fixed fee without notice
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to recover fees above the fixed fee prior to 15 June 2012

Ratio Decidendi

The proviso in the retainer did not automatically entitle the claimant to charge hourly rates upon the fixed fee assumptions being superseded. The claimant was required to notify the defendant of its intention to revisit fees, provide accurate information about accrued and anticipated costs, and give the defendant an informed opportunity to agree a new basis or terminate the retainer. Only after such notice and opportunity, and the defendant's decision to continue, did liability for hourly rates crystallise, which occurred on 15 June 2012.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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