Robinson v EMW Law LLP

Robinson v EMW Law LLP

The presumption that a solicitor acting for a client is entitled to costs applies unless there is an express or implied agreement to the contrary. The absence of a written retainer prior to 1 May 2015 does not preclude recovery of costs for work done by Fidelity Law LLP for the appellant. There was no agreement that the appellant would not be liable for those costs. However, there was an implied agreement that Fidelity would not charge for the appellant's own time. The Chorley principle applies to allow the appellant to recover costs for his own work as a solicitor in his own cause, assessed at a reasonable rate, even though he was a consultant and not a partner or member of the firm.

Parties
Appellant: Christopher Ian Robinson; Respondent: EMW Law LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Costs Assessment / Appeal From Preliminary Ruling on Detailed Costs Assessment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Indemnity Principle, Solicitor's Costs, Retainer Agreements, Chorley Principle
Civil Procedure Costs Law Indemnity Principle Solicitor's Costs Retainer Agreements Chorley Principle

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Ian Robinson

Appellant

EMW Law LLP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Costs Assessment / Appeal From Preliminary Ruling on Detailed Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indemnity principle precludes recovery of costs by the appellant for work done by his solicitors prior to a written retainer
  2. 2 Whether the appellant can recover costs for his own work as a solicitor in his own cause under the Chorley principle

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption that a solicitor acting for a client is entitled to costs applies unless there is an express or implied agreement to the contrary. The absence of a written retainer prior to 1 May 2015 does not preclude recovery of costs for work done by Fidelity Law LLP for the appellant. There was no agreement that the appellant would not be liable for those costs. However, there was an implied agreement that Fidelity would not charge for the appellant's own time. The Chorley principle applies to allow the appellant to recover costs for his own work as a solicitor in his own cause, assessed at a reasonable rate, even though he was a consultant and not a partner or member of the firm.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Costs for work done by Fidelity Law LLP prior to 1 May 2015 are recoverable by the appellant, subject to assessment.
  • Costs for work done by the appellant as a solicitor in his own cause are recoverable under the Chorley principle, at a reasonable rate to be agreed or assessed.