Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor v Minkin

Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor v Minkin

The client had no reasonable justification for withholding payment of the solicitors' bill, as estimates were not binding and the client was aware of his right to challenge the bill. The solicitors were entitled to suspend services pending payment. The retainer was ultimately terminated by the client due to loss of confidence, not by the solicitors. Therefore, the solicitors were entitled to payment for work properly done up to termination, and the lower courts erred in ordering repayment to the client.

Parties
Appellant: Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor; Respondent: Gary Minkin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Costs Assessment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Solicitor Client Retainer, Termination of Retainer, Costs Assessment, Breach of Contract, Reasonable Justification for Non Payment
Contract Law Legal Profession Regulation Solicitor Client Retainer Termination of Retainer Costs Assessment Breach of Contract Reasonable Justification for Non Payment

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor

Appellant

Gary Minkin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the solicitors were entitled to suspend or terminate the retainer for non-payment of fees
  2. 2 Whether the client had reasonable justification for withholding payment of the solicitors' bill
  3. 3 Whether the solicitors' suspension or termination of services amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The client had no reasonable justification for withholding payment of the solicitors' bill, as estimates were not binding and the client was aware of his right to challenge the bill. The solicitors were entitled to suspend services pending payment. The retainer was ultimately terminated by the client due to loss of confidence, not by the solicitors. Therefore, the solicitors were entitled to payment for work properly done up to termination, and the lower courts erred in ordering repayment to the client.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of lower courts set aside
  • Solicitors entitled to payment for work properly done up to termination