Gill v Heer Manak Solicitors

Gill v Heer Manak Solicitors

The firm gave no advance notice to the claimant of termination of the retainer. In the absence of any factual evidence justifying this, and considering the claimant's vulnerable position and the litigation timetable, the master erred in law in finding that no notice was reasonable. Therefore, the firm was not entitled to terminate the retainer without notice and cannot claim the fees sought.

Parties
Claimant (appellant): Mr Manjit Gill; Defendant (respondent): Heer Manak Solicitors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Master Brown in the Senior Costs Office
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Retainer, Termination of Retainer, Reasonable Notice, Costs Entitlement
Civil Procedure Legal Costs Contract Law Solicitor's Retainer Termination of Retainer Reasonable Notice Costs Entitlement

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Manjit Gill

Claimant (appellant)

Heer Manak Solicitors

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Master Brown in the Senior Costs Office

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant solicitors gave reasonable notice of termination of the retainer to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to claim costs after terminating the retainer without notice

Ratio Decidendi

The firm gave no advance notice to the claimant of termination of the retainer. In the absence of any factual evidence justifying this, and considering the claimant's vulnerable position and the litigation timetable, the master erred in law in finding that no notice was reasonable. Therefore, the firm was not entitled to terminate the retainer without notice and cannot claim the fees sought.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds; the firm is not entitled to claim the fees sought in the proceedings before the master.