Category: Legal Professions

Oliver Fisher (A Firm) v Legal Services Commission: Admn 10 May 2002

Gilliatt A solicitors’ firm had been paid for work done in a case by the Legal Services Commission. The LSC had a right to a statutory charge against a property which had been preserved as a result of the proceedings. The solicitors should have reported to the LSC that they had recovered the property by December 1999. In February 2000 the firm applied to have the legal aid certificate discharged. It was not until August 2000 that they made the report to the LSC about the recovery of property giving rise to the statutory charge. The LSC did not actually receive the report until mid September. The LSC then applied to register a caution against the property. In the meantime the litigant had put the property on the market and a prospective purchaser had lodged an official search with the land registry. The upshot was that the purchaser’s application to register title had priority over the LSC’s application to register a charge. The property was transferred to the purchasers. By the time the LSC were told their charge had not been registered, the solicitors had been paid and the litigant had been paid by the purchaser. The LSC then tried to claw back the money paid out for costs from other sums claimed by the solicitors in respect of different cases.
Held: Despite the fact that the solicitors had not done everything they should have done promptly, there was no actual power, on a construction of the regulations on the part of the LSC to take back the money.
Scott Baker J said: ‘[Counsel for the Commission] submits that . . Section 4(1)(b) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 gives the defendants a statutory power to operate a running account. This however does not in my judgment give a right to relocate or move money that has been earned and paid in case ‘A’ to case ‘B’ or to recoup money.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1017 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Legal Aid Act 1988 4(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Aid, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.172254

Noueiri v Paragon Finance Plc (Practice Note): CA 19 Sep 2001

Courts should be careful before allowing unqualified persons to represent other parties at court. Pleadings and similar documents must be signed by the party or their qualified legal representative. Others signing them may be in contempt of court and committing criminal offences. A McKenzie friend had no right to act as such, only the right to provide assistance, and that did not include any right to represent a party as an advocate. An order was granted banning Mr. Alexander from being involved in proceedings other than any on his own behalf.
Court Service Summary This summary does not form part of the judgment)

1. In this judgment the Court of Appeal has given its reasons for making an order banning Mr. Alexander from taking any steps whatever within the Royal Courts of Justice by way of acting or purporting to act on behalf of persons other than himself in legal proceedings except with the permission of a judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal. The court also gave guidance about the activities of unqualified people who from time to time seek to help litigants in person in the courts. This ‘help’ may take the form of acting as an advocate in court on their behalf or of conducting litigation on their behalf. The exercise of both these rights is now controlled by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

Advocacy services and rights of audience

2. The existence or otherwise of a right of audience is now determined exclusively by Part II of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (‘the 1990 Act’) and particularly by section 27. If the ‘helper’ is not a barrister or a solicitor or a member of any other authorised body, and does not have rights granted by some statute, he may only have a right of audience in relation to any proceedings if ‘granted by that court in relation to those proceedings’.

3. Lord Woolf, when Master of the Rolls, has said that the discretion to grant rights of audience to individuals who did not meet the stringent requirements of the Act should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances. He added that the courts should pause long before granting rights to individuals who made a practice of seeking to represent otherwise unrepresented litigants.

McKenzie friends

4. Although this case was not concerned with McKenzie friends, the court also set out three principles relating to McKenzie friends. The first is that a McKenzie friend has no right to act as such: the only right is that of the litigant to have reasonable assistance. The second is that a McKenzie friend is not entitled to address the court. If he does so, he becomes an advocate and requires the grant of a right of audience. The third is that as a general rule a litigant in person who wishes to have a McKenzie friend should be allowed to do so, unless the judge is satisfied that fairness and the interests of justice do not so require. However, the court can prevent a McKenzie friend from continuing to act in that capacity where the assistance he gives impedes the efficient administration of justice.

The right to conduct litigation

5. The question whether a person has a right to conduct litigation is also determined solely in accordance with Part II of the 1990 Act. The ‘right to conduct litigation’ means the right to issue proceedings before any court, and the right to perform any ancillary functions in relation to proceedings (such as entering appearances to actions). The right to conduct litigation may be granted having regard to the same considerations as the grant of the right of audience. A court has the power to grant an otherwise unqualified person a right to conduct litigation in relation to particular proceedings. It also has the power to remove that right if it is being abused. It is a criminal offence and also a contempt of the court concerned to do any act in the purported exercise of a right to conduct litigation when none has been conferred.

The Solicitors Act

6. The court also referred to section 20(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974. This section provides that ‘no unqualified person shall act as a solicitor, or as such issue any writ or process, or commence, prosecute or defend any action, suit or other proceeding, in his own name or in the name of any other person, in any court of civil or criminal jurisdiction’. The section creates a criminal offence and also a contempt of the court in which the relevant action is brought. There is no breach and no contempt if the acts in question are carried out pursuant to a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation granted under the 1990 Act. In its judgment the court explains how the words ‘acts as a solicitor’ have been interpreted in the past.

Publicity for these principles

7. The Court expressed the wish that steps might be taken to bring these principles to the attention of everyone who exercises judicial office in the Royal Courts of Justice and every relevant member of court staff. It said that court staff should be particularly vigilant to ensure that formal documents, such as an appellant’s notice, should be signed either by the appellant himself or by someone, such as a solicitor, who has the legal right to conduct litigation on the appellant’s behalf. The court also expressed the hope that the appropriate authorities in the Supreme Court Group and the Civil Appeal Office might set up administrative systems to assist judges to identify those lay representatives who are not simply helping a friend or relation but are holding themselves out to act for others on a regular basis.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

Times 04-Oct-2001, Gazette 18-Oct-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1402, [2001] 1 WLR 2357, [2002] CP Rep 5, [2002] Fam Law 16, [2002] 1 Costs LR 12, [2001] NPC 138

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1974 20(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – McKenzie v McKenzie CA 10-Jul-1970
Mr McKenzie was a litigant in person who wished to be assisted by a young Australian barrister, gratuitously, in the conduct of his case by sitting beside the husband in Court and prompting him. The hearing was in open Court. The friend’s conduct . .
Cited – Regina v Bow County Court, Ex Parte Pelling CA 17-Dec-1999
Access to the court given to a McKenzie Friend should normally be given in matters in open court, but when it came to matters being heard in chambers, the judge had discretion as to who he would hear. The right is in any event that of the litigant, . .
See Also – Paragon Finance Plc v Noueiri CA 24-Apr-2001
Application for leave to appeal. . .
See Also – Paragon Finance Plc v Noueiri CA 4-Jul-2001
. .
Cited – D v S (Rights of Audience); In re and Application by Dr Pelling CA 18-Dec-1996
The court said that the representation of a litigant in person by a charging non-professional must be only exceptional. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Guidance (McKenzie Friends) 2005
Sir Mark Potter gave guidance on the acceptance of McKenzie Friends as advocates: ‘A court may grant an unqualified person a right of audience in exceptional circumstances only and only after careful consideration (D v S (Rights of Audience) [1997] . .
Cited – In Re N (A Child) FD 20-Aug-2008
There had been several hearings and the father had been assisted by a McKenzie friend permitted to address the court. The father now objected to the mother’s McKenzie friend being given similar leave.
Held: Whilst Dr Pelling might make a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Legal Professions, Contempt of Court

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.166185

Regina v Law Society ex parte Mortgage Express Limited; Regina v Law Society ex parte Alliance and Leicester Building Society: CA 17 Dec 1996

The court considered the duties of the respondent in administering the Compensation Fund: ‘It seems clear from the current legislation that the history of the fund and the mode of operating it that the solicitors’ profession was never intended or required to assume an open ended liability to meet any unsatisfied loss sustained by any party caused by the dishonesty of any solicitor. The liability imposed (for instance) on banks and stockbrokers is very much more modest. Any discretion in a matter of this kind must, of course, be exercised reasonably, fairly, in good faith, so far as possible consistently and with regard to the objects of the legislation. But there is nothing to prevent the Law Society formulating and following their own policies which satisfy these criteria, provided they do not fetter their discretion by applying such policies inflexibly and without recognising that exceptional cases may call for exceptional exercises of discretion. Administering a limited fund exposed to potentially unlimited demands, and with a membership whose resources are finite, the Law Society are in practice bound (and in law they are entitled) to give priority to those classes of claim which they regard, for sustainable reasons, as having the most pressing claim to be met (wholly or in part) out of the fund. This inevitably means that some applicants who succeed at the first stage fail at the second. All they have a right to seek is a favourable exercise of discretion.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham CJ

Citations:

[1997] 2 All ER 348, [1996] EWCA Civ 1234

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1974 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Law Society ex parte Birkett Admn 30-Jul-1999
Some twenty years after the events, the claimant still sought compensation following the alleged negligence of his former solicitor. He now sought it from the Law Society’s compensation fund. The Law Society said the nature of his claim was outside . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141102

Nelson v Nelson: CA 6 Dec 1996

A solicitor appealed against an order requiring him to contribute to the costs of Mareva injunction applied for on behalf of his bankrupt client.
Held: Solicitors were not liable in costs personally for starting proceedings on behalf of a bankrupt. A bankrupt has power to instruct solicitor to commence proceedings. Waller LJ
Gibson LJ said: ‘s.306 of the Insolvency Act 1986 . . vested in the trustee in bankruptcy property such as the bankrupt’s claimed interest in [the subject matter of that claim] on the bankruptcy . . the question to be answered is whether the bankrupt had capacity to retain a solicitor to commence the proceedings which he did commence. These proceedings are not a nullity such as would have been the case if the plaintiff did not exist. But they were liable to be stayed or struck out because the bankrupt did not have any interest in the property, such interest as he did have prior to the bankruptcy order having vested in the trustee in bankruptcy. They might be stayed pending the decision of the trustee in bankruptcy to take over the proceedings. Alternatively, if the trustee did not wish to do so, a defendant could apply to strike out the action’.
Waller LJ said: ‘if the solicitor commences an action for a bankrupt in relation to a cause of action which is vested in the bankrupt’s trustee, there will on most occasions be negligence bringing into play the jurisdiction which does not depend on an analogy with breach of warranty of authority’.

Judges:

Gibson LJ, Waller LJ

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jan-1997, Times 08-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1140, [1997] 1 WLR 233, [1997] 1 All ER 979

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 306

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Myers v Elman HL 1939
The solicitor had successfully appealed against an order for a contribution to the other party’s legal costs, after his clerk had filed statements in court which he knew to be misleading. The solicitor’s appeal had been successful.
Held: The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Thames Chambers Solicitors v Miah QBD 16-May-2013
The solicitors appealed against a wasted costs order. They had accepted instructions to act for a bankrupt in pursuing a debt before his discharge and without the debt having been assigned to him by the trustee in bankruptcy.
Held: The order . .
Cited – Pickthall and Another v Hill Dickinson Llp CA 11-Jun-2009
The court was asked as to the extent to which it is an abuse of the process for a claimant to commence proceedings without having the relevant cause of action vested in him, and whether it would be right to allow him to amend his pleadings to plead . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Insolvency, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141008

Bass and Another v Solicitors Regulation Authority: Admn 18 Jul 2012

The appellants challenged the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal finding them in breach of the 1998 Rules in that they had failed to prevent a former partner making unauthorised, if small, withdrawals of residual balances from client account. No dishonesty had been suggested.
Held: The tribunal had been wrong to treat the matter as one of strict liability. However, the ‘strong inference of lack of supervision’ was not rebutted, and that therefore some financial penalty, and not merely a reprimand, was merited. The fines were reduced.

Judges:

Bean J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2012 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1974, Solicitors’ Accounts Rules 1998, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Law Society v Salsbury CA 25-Nov-2008
The Society appealed against an order quashing the striking-off of the solicitor.
Held: Bolton was still the leading case though the solicitor must be given an opportunity for a fair trial. Though it was not necessary to show a very strong . .
Cited – Hazelhurst and Others v Solicitors Regulation Authority Admn 11-Mar-2011
The claimants appealed against disciplinary orders. A member of staff had stolen substantial sums from client account. They had admitted breaches of the Accounts and Practice rules, but personally made good all losses. They said that the Solicitors . .
Cited – Akodu v Solicitors Regulation Authority Admn 13-Nov-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462951

Regina v Law Society ex parte Shuttari: CA 25 Nov 1996

The client complained that he should have been advised to apply for legal aid and otherwise. The solicitor now appealed a disciplinary finding against her.
Held: The court considered the purpose of Schedule 1A of the 1974 Act: ‘it is arguable that the primary purpose is to redress shoddy service and to provide a rough and ready means of mitigating the consequences of that shoddy service by ensuring that the solicitors do not wrongfully profit thereby, and that the client is redressed if the client has suffered as a result of any failure to perform to the high standard which it is reasonable to expect of a solicitor. ‘

Judges:

Stuart Smith LJ, Aldous LJ, Ward LJ

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 1033

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1974 Sch1A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Solicitors’ Complaints Bureau, ex parte Singh and Chowdury Admn 1995
The court considered the disciplinary duties of the Law Society: ‘The object of the provision is disciplinary. It is to assist in maintaining the standards to be achieved by solicitors and to provide sanctions in terms of costs and payment if the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140900

First National Commercial Bank Plc v Loxleys (a Firm): CA 6 Nov 1996

The plaintiff claimed damages from the seller of land and from their solicitors for misrepresentation in the replies to enquiries before contract. He appealed a striking out of his claim.
Held: A lawyer’s disclaimer placed on his Replies to Enquiries before Contract were to be examined carefully to see if they constituted an unfair term. The claim was not unarguable, and should proceed. Whether the solicitor owed a duty of care could not be decided without assessing the validity of the disclaimer. ‘neither the duty of care issue nor the disclaimer issue is suitable to be determined under Order 14A.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Nourse, Lord Justice Waller, Sir John May

Citations:

Gazette 20-Nov-1996, Times 14-Nov-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 886

Statutes:

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gran Gelato Ltd v Richcliff (Group) Ltd ChD 1992
The claimant wished to purchase an underlease from the first defendant. The claimant’s solicitors inquired of the second defendants, a firm of solicitors acting for the first defendant, whether any provisions in the headlease might affect the length . .
Cited – Kemp Properties (UK) Ltd v Dentsply Research and Development Corporation 1989
The court considered a Solicitor’s possible personal liability for misrepresentation made in replies given to enquiries before contract on acting on the sale of land. . .
Cited – Wilson v Bloomfield 1979
Negligence of solicitor in answering replies to preliminary enquiries on a sale of land. . .
Cited – Smith v Eric S Bush, a firm etc HL 20-Apr-1989
In Smith, the lender instructed a valuer who knew that the buyer and mortgagee were likely to rely on his valuation alone. The valuer said his terms excluded responsibility. The mortgagor had paid an inspection fee to the building society and . .
Cited – Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
Cited – Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL 25-Jul-1994
Lloyds Agents Owe Care Duty to Member; no Contract
Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
Held: The assumption of . .
Cited – McCullagh v Lane Fox and Partners Ltd CA 19-Dec-1995
There was no duty in negligent mis-statement from a vendor’s estate agent to a purchaser for that purchaser’s financial loss after proceeding without first obtaining a survey relying upon the agent.
Hobhouse LJ said: ‘On the Sunday, Mr. Scott . .
Cited – William Sindall Plc v Cambridgeshire County Council CA 21-May-1993
Land was bought for development, but the purchaser later discovered a sewage pipe which very substantially limited its development potential. The existence of the pipe had not been disclosed on the sale, being unknown to the seller.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Torts – Other

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140753

Tankaria and others v Morgan and others: ChD 20 Apr 2005

The claimants sought committal orders against the defendant solicitors who had carried out conveyancing transactions on their behalf, but had failed to deliver completion statements and to acount for funds accordingly.
Held: The application failed: ‘with considerable reluctance, I find it impossible to conclude that it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Miss Morgan intended not to comply with Master Bragge’s order.
Strong things may be said about her competence, but I do not think I can say on the present material, that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt, that she intended wilfully to breach Master Bragge’s order, at least up to 14 March.’

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 3282 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Legal Professions

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.263693

Fisher Meredith Llp v JH and Another: FD 2 Mar 2012

The solicitors appealed against a wasted costs order made against them when acting for W in financial remedy proceedings, being found to be responsible for the late adjournment of a five days remedy hering.

Judges:

Mostyn J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 408 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460521

Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis (A Firm) and others: CA 11 Mar 2005

The defendant firm of solicitors, acting as executors had sought to arrange matters to minimise Inheritance Tax. A deed of variation was put in place after approval by the court, but the CTO interpreted the deed differently. The executors believed the interpretation to be wrong and sought advantage from that interpretation on counsel’s advice. Negligence was alleged in having paid an excess sum in respect of a life interest, and in the incurring of unnecessary costs. Negligence was found in several respects.
Held: The amount paid by the executors to achieve the variation, though more than was a approriate in actuarial terms, had been the amount needed in order to achieve the Court of Protection order, and was justifiable accordingly. Appeal allowed in part.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 248

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Inheritance Tax Act 1984 142(1), Mental Health Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Liptrott, Forrester, Kippax Beaumont Lewis CA 24-Oct-2003
Solicitors sought to challenge an order disallowing a costs item for the administration of an estate which included a percentage of the estate.
Held: Despite advances in time recording, ‘we see no reason to say that it is no longer appropriate . .
Appeal from – Jemma Trust Company Limited v Kippax Beaumont Lewis and others ChD 1-Apr-2004
. .
Cited – In re DML ChD 1965
The Court considered provisions in Section 102 of the Mental Health Act 1959. This section empowered the judge to secure (the doing of all such things as appear necessary . . ) ‘(b) for the maintenance or other benefit of members of the patient’s . .
Cited – In re W (EEM) 1971
It would be for the ‘benefit’ of the patient to exercise the powers conferred by section 95(1) of the 1983 Act so as to enable there to be done something which the patient would have wished to do if he had been able to act for himself. . .
Cited – Re King’s Will Trusts, Assheton v Boyne ChD 1964
An assent by personal representatives is ‘the instrument or act whereby a personal representative effectuates a testamentary disposition by transferring the subject-matter of the disposition to the person entitled to it’, and must be in writing even . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Hawley 1928
When a legatee of shares received them more than a year after the death, he was not treated as receiving all the accrued dividends as income of the year in which the shares became vested in him, but rather, by relation back to the death, in the year . .

Cited by:

See Also – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis and others CA 22-Nov-2004
The defendants asserted that they had executed a trust deed on the advice of senior counsel in conference. The judge said the notes of the meeting did not justify that conclusion. The firm sought permission to appeal.
Held: There was room for . .
See Also – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Liptrott, Forrester, Kippax Beaumont Lewis CA 24-Oct-2003
Solicitors sought to challenge an order disallowing a costs item for the administration of an estate which included a percentage of the estate.
Held: Despite advances in time recording, ‘we see no reason to say that it is no longer appropriate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Wills and Probate

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.223377

Wood v Law Society: CA 1 Mar 1995

The solicitor had acted for the client in a series of loans, and had not disclosed his own directorship in one or more of the companies. His firm later acted for the lender in recovering possession form their former client. The claimant made several complaints to the Law Society.
Held: A damages claim against Law Society for failure to deal properly with a complaint failed. The plaintiff’s damages did not arise from the Society’s fault, but that of the solicitor.

Citations:

Times 02-Mar-1995, Independent 01-Mar-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Wood v Law Society QBD 28-Jul-1993
The claimant said that her several complaints to the Law Society about her former solicitor had been negligently handled.
Held: There is no general duty of care owed to clients, or opponents, of solicitors on the part of the Law Society, as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Administrative, Legal Professions

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.90586

Regina v R: CACD 2 Feb 1994

DNA test results which had been obtained by a defendant’s solicitor were protected by legal professional privilege from production by a prosecutor for other purposes.

Citations:

Gazette 30-Mar-1994, Times 02-Feb-1994

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence, Legal Professions

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87584

Regina v Law Society, ex parte Curtin: CA 3 Dec 1993

The Law Society can delegate certain of its functions to the holder of an office within the Society, without specifying him or her by name.

Citations:

Ind Summary 13-Dec-1993, Times 03-Dec-1993

Statutes:

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 79

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Administrative

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87134

Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Gilchrist: CA 8 Mar 1994

A Solicitor giving advice as a Duty Solicitor via a telephone re-routing service was acting in his own right and within the regulations.

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Gilchrist QBD 9-Jun-1993
A scheme to use company references for Police Station Own Solicitor duty solicitor work was lawful. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Gilchrist QBD 9-Jun-1993
A scheme to use company references for Police Station Own Solicitor duty solicitor work was lawful. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87155

Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte Law Society: CA 11 Aug 1993

Lord Chancellor is free to impose a fee scheme if it accords with the words of the Act. The standard fees regulations for magistrates Courts works are within the Lord Chancellor’s powers.

Citations:

Times 11-Aug-1993, Independent 24-Sep-1993

Statutes:

Legal Aid Act 1988 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte the Law Society (1) QBD 4-May-1993
The introduction of a Standard Criminal Legal Aid fees regime was within the Lord Chancellor’s proper range of discretion, even without consultation with the Law Society.
The meaning of ‘carried entering UK’ can include clothing being worn, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid, Legal Professions

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87216

In Re A Barrister (Wasted Costs Order): CA 15 Mar 1994

Barrister to pay wasted costs where he had no system for discovering the listing of cases. It was his personal responsibility for keeping abreast of such listings.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jun-1994, Gazette 30-Mar-1994, Times 15-Mar-1994, Independent 15-Mar-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.85690

Fozal v Gofur: CA 9 Jul 1993

An order for wasted costs against counsel could only be allowed with respect to acts done after 1 October 1991, with the new rules.

Citations:

Times 09-Jul-1993, Ind Summary 26-Jul-1993, [1993] CA Transcript 680

Statutes:

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990$ 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.80655

Brown v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Plc: CA 27 Jan 1994

Policy terms negate professional privilege between solicitor and insurance company’s solicitor. No privilege against disclosure between firm, solicitors and own insurers.

Citations:

Independent 11-Feb-1994, Times 27-Jan-1994, Gazette 02-Mar-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.78701

His Majesty’s Advocate v William Urquhart of Meldrum, Esq: HL 6 Feb 1755

Decree of Sale. – Patronage. – Testing Clause – Sasine. –
1 st. A decree of sale does not cut off the right of or exclude parties not called in the ranking and sale; and the Act 1695 does not protect a purchaser in such a case. 2d. A contract as to patronage sustained, though the witnesses’ designations to the subscription of one of the contracting parties were not inserted in the body of the deed. 3d. Found no objection to a sasine that the notary’s docquet did not mention the particular symbols used in passing infeftment, or bear the notary’s motto affixed to his signature, the sasine being eighty years old, and possession having followed upon it.

Citations:

[1755] UKHL 1 – Paton – 586

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Legal Professions

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.558222

Iqbal v Legal Services Commission: CA 10 May 2005

The claimant had been a partner in a firm of solicitors. They came to be suspected by the respondent of overclaiming legal aid payments and sums were withheld. For this and other reasons the practice folded, and the claimant became insolvent. He claimed that officers of the respondent had acted improperly, and claimed misfeasance in public office, in inter alia having failed to make payments which it had agreed to make. The respondent replied as a preliminary point that the claim was out of time.
Held: There was nothing to indicate that any failure by the Commission was continuing, and the applicant had not established any malice in law to found a claim.

Judges:

Pill, Chadwick, May LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 623

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Forster v Outred and Co CA 1981
A mother signed a mortgage deed charging her property to H as security for a loan to her son. She claimed the solicitor had been negligent in his advice. The solicitor replied that the claim was out of time. The loss accrued not when demand for . .
Cited – Hopkins v Mackenzie CA 27-Oct-1994
A loss arising from a solicitor’s failure to pursue a case arose only when the claim was struck out, not earlier when compromised, and even though value already diminished. Accordingly the limitation period began to run from that time. . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
Cited – Knapp v Ecclesiastical Insurance Group Plc and Another CA 30-Oct-1997
A claim in negligence was brought against insurance brokers for failing to advise the claimant of certain matters with the result that an insurance policy entered into by the claimant was voidable for non-disclosure.
Held: The claimant . .
Cited – Khan v R M Falvey and Co (a Firm) CA 22-Mar-2002
The claimant sought damages from his former solicitors for failing to act to avoid his case being struck out. The second action was itself delayed, and the defendants asserted that the cause of action occurred not when his claim was actually struck . .
Distinguished – Darley Main Colliery Co v Mitchell HL 1886
The owner of land whose land was affected by subsidence in 1868 and who received compensation from those who had worked coal and caused the subsidence, was able, in 1882 when further subsidence took place causing further injury, to bring a fresh . .
Cited – Nykredit Mortgage Bank Plc v Edward Erdman Group Ltd (No 2) HL 27-Nov-1997
A surveyor’s negligent valuation had led to the plaintiff obtaining what turned out to be inadequate security for his loan. A cause of action against a valuer for his negligent valuation arises when a relevant and measurable loss is first recorded. . .
Cited – Phonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
Cited – Yeheskel Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd ComC 11-Nov-1999
A claimant in an action for damages for breaches of Articles 85, 86 of Rome Treaty, who had previously complained of such breaches to the European Commission but failed to complain of matters subsequently, attempted to raise in an action is . .
Cited – Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’) HL 13-Mar-2003
Cargo owners sought damages for their cargo which had been damaged aboard the ship. The contract had been endorsed with additional terms. That variation may have changed the contract from a charterer’s to a shipowner’s bill.
Held: The specific . .
Cited – Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (The Starsin) CA 23-Jan-2001
Cargo had been negligently stowed on a ship so that condensation caused damage during the subsequent voyage. The claimant only acquired a title to the cargo after the voyage had commenced. The defendants contended that no duty of care could be owed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Limitation, Torts – Other

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.226149

Brown and Another v Bennett and Others (No 2): ChD 16 Nov 2001

The power to make a wasted costs order did not apply only against advocates in court, and not only against the applicant’s own representatives. The test was as to the causing of additional costs. In this case several barristers had been involved at different stages. The defendants asserted that they should have appreciated that there was no prospect of success in an allegation of fraud. A decision to plead fraud, within the terms of the barristers’ code of conduct, was a matter of professional judgement. An order should be made only if the view reached by counsel that he could plead dishonesty was unreasonable or reckless. In this case also the claimants insisted on retaining their legal privilege, and accordingly the barristers were unable properly to defend their decisions.

Judges:

Justice Neuberger

Citations:

Times 21-Nov-2001, Gazette 10-Jan-2002

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons and Simmons CA 12-May-1995
Lost chance claim – not mere speculative claim
Solicitors failed to advise the plaintiffs sufficiently in a property transaction. A warranty against liability for a former tenant’s obligations under leases had not been obtained. The trial judge held that, on a balance of probabilities, there was . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .

Cited by:

Distinguished – Byrne v Sefton Health Authority CA 22-Nov-2001
There was no power to make an order for wasted costs against a solicitor who had not been acting in a matter when proceedings were issued. Delays eventually led to the dismissal of a medical negligence case for limitation. The defendant authority . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs, Litigation Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.166845

Wasted Costs Order (No 5 of 1997): CACD 2 Sep 1999

Witness orders for the production of documents in the speculative hope that they might contain matters of assistance should be discouraged, and particularly so in respect of documents held by social services departments. This should now be well known and expected, and counsel breaking this rule should expect a wasted costs order.

Citations:

Times 02-Sep-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Reading Justices ex parte Berkshire County Council QBD 5-May-1995
Disclosure by third parties in criminal proceedings was not affected by other new rule. Simon Brown LJ summarised the tests for materiality for requiring production of dicuments from third parties by magistrates: ‘The central principles . . . are as . .
Cited – In re Ronald A Prior and Co (Solicitors) 1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.90314

Appeal Under S 3(c) of Costs In Criminal Cases (General Amendment) Regulations of 1991 Against a Wasted Costs Order Re: Lakha and Boothby Wasted Costs Order 5/97: CACD 6 Nov 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Crim 3148

Statutes:

Costs In Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 3(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.156022

Regina v Bowden (BT): CACD 10 Feb 1999

The defendant was charged with robbing a McDonald’s restaurant. He had refused to answer questions when interviewed on arrest, and his solicitor had put on record that this was on the grounds that the solicitor did not think the evidence strong enough. At the trial, the defendant adduced the terms of that advice. The questions which he had declined to answer included enquiries into an apparent sudden increase in wealth, without obvious source, shortly after the robbery, and about his having taken a holiday immediately afterwards in Gran Canaria where he had been photographed in celebratory pose outside the local branch of McDonalds. At his trial he gave detailed explanations both for his spending and for wishing to photograph the McDonalds restaurant. Accordingly the question arose whether an adverse section 34 inference was open to the jury or not.
Held: A defendant who claimed only not to have answered police questions on legal advice, did not waive legal privilege protection until he also asked that no inferences be drawn from his silence. That request operated as a waiver of that privilege, and questions could then also be asked to establish the advice he had been given by his solicitor and its context. ‘The object of these sections was to weaken the protection which criminal defendants had previously enjoyed against the drawing of inferences adverse to them from such failures and refusals in the circumstances specified. Proper effect must of course be given to these provisions. But since they restrict rights recognised at common law as appropriate to protect defendants against the risk of injustice, they should not be construed more widely than the statutory language requires. There is nothing in any of these sections to suggest that Parliament intended in any way to modify the existing law on legal professional privilege.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham CJ, Kennedy, Jackson JJ

Citations:

Gazette 10-Mar-1999, Times 25-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 331, [1999] 1 WLR 823, [1999] 4 All ER 43, (1999) 163 JP 337, [1999] 2 Cr App R 176

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34 35 36 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Cited – Regina v Milford CACD 21-Dec-2000
D was charged with three co-defendants with conspiring to import cannabis. He gave a largely no comment interview to the interviewing customs officer, but at trial said that the contacts with his co-defendants were innocent. Since this account had . .
Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Cited – Beckles, Regina v CACD 12-Nov-2004
The appellant had been convicted in 1997 of robbery and false imprisonment. His case was now refererred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defendant had, on advice from his solicitor refused to answer questions at the police station. The . .
Cited – Seaton v Regina CACD 13-Aug-2010
The defendant had been accused of recent fabrication of evidence, having given evidence in court which varied from that given in interview on arrest. The crown had commented on his failure to call his solicitor to give evidence. The defendant said . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Crime, Legal Professions

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.135855

Regina v McFarlane: CACD 23 Feb 1999

A solicitor may properly delay taking instructions from his criminal client until he has seen the details of the prosecution case, but must take care not to become embroiled in attempt to procrastinate the choice of defence, and must not mislead counsel.

Citations:

Times 24-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 496

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.85397

In Re Mintz (Wasted Costs Order): CACD 16 Jul 1999

A judge should before making a wasted costs order consult the written texts on the subject now available and which set out the elements he should allow for. Here counsel was at fault, but rather than delaying the start of a trial by a day, the judge could have allowed the case to start with arrangements being made in that day to cure the defect.

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.82067

Onofrei (Judgment): ECJ 17 Dec 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Free movement of persons – Freedom of establishment – Access to the profession of lawyer – Exemption from training and diploma – Grant of exemption – Conditions – National regulations providing for exemption in favor of civil servants and former category civil servants A or assimilated having a professional practice of national law, on the national territory, in the national civil service of the Member State concerned or in an international organization

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2020:1034, C-218/19, [2020] EUECJ C-218/19

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Legal Professions

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.660741

Brown and Others (Brown’s Trustees) v Hay: SCS 12 Jul 1898

A clerk employed to audit the books of a firm of law-agents communicated to the inland revenue the contents of a document which belonged to a client of the firm, and which had come into his possession solely in the capacity of auditor. The document was a statement of the client’s annual profits considerably in excess of the returns actually made by him to the Inland Revenue.
In an action raised by the client against the clerk, held that by divulging the contents of the paper in question to a third party the defender had infringed the pursuer’s right of property in the document, and therefore that the pursuer was entitled to interdict and damages.
Per Lord M’Laren-‘I have never heard or read that the duty of assisting the Treasury in the collection of the public revenue was of such a paramount nature that it must be carried out by private individuals at the cost of the betrayal of confidence and the invasion of the proprietary rights of other people.’

Judges:

Lord Stormonth Darling, Ordinary

Citations:

[1898] SLR 35 – 877

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Legal Professions

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.612267

Alder v The Chief Constable of Humberside Police and others: CA 18 Dec 2006

The claimant’s brother had died whilst in custody. Prosecutions of police officers had failed, and the claimant alleged that Crown Prosecution Service had been negligent and discriminatory in its conduct of the prosecution.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1741

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Legal Professions

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.247423

Bilkus v Stockler Brunton (A Firm): ChD 30 Jul 2009

The court upheld the refusal of the master to allow the claimant solicitors to submit an amended bill: ‘In his oral submissions, Mr Stockler . . frankly acknowledged that he had been in error in supposing that it was possible to charge an uplift for contentious work, and said that he tried to make the andpound;50,000 charge ‘look more appetising’ to Mr Bilkus by treating it as an uplift on all of the bills since April 2001. I do not find this explanation entirely easy to reconcile with what Mr Stockler said in his witness statement, but whatever Mr Stockler may or may not have subjectively intended, there can be no doubt that the bill would have been read by any reasonable recipient as intended to charge the uplift on the whole series of bills since April 2001. A mistake of that character in my judgment evinces a serious disregard of the Firm’s contract with its client and the relevant provisions of the Solicitors Act 1974. It is not the kind of mistake from which any firm of solicitors should expect to be relieved, let alone a firm based in the City of London and holding itself out as capable of dealing with complex High Court litigation.
I emphasise that this is not just a matter of discipline for its own sake. It is essential that the terms upon which a solicitor charges his client should be recorded in writing, and that a solicitor should not attempt to charge fees which are contrary to the terms of his retainer. It is also essential that, in all save exceptional circumstances, the client should be able to rely on the accuracy, both factual and legal, of bills which he receives from his solicitor. The particular mischief in the present case is that the Firm sought to charge an unjustified success fee of andpound;50,000, in circumstances where it was clear that the client had not agreed to this. Many clients might have been willing to pay a success fee of andpound;50,000 following a valuation which had been so successful, whether or not they were legally obliged to do so. However, Mr Bilkus was fully entitled to stand on his legal rights, and to insist that the Firm should be paid the fees which had been agreed, and no more. He may well have reflected that the Firm would have been unlikely to agree a reduction in its fees if the valuation exercise had gone against him. In any event, the important point, as it seems to me, is that the Firm deliberately sought to charge a substantial fee by way of uplift which had no possible justification. In those circumstances, the Master was in my judgment quite right to refuse the Firm permission to amend the invoice.’

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1957 (Ch), [2009] 4 Costs LR 652

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1974 70

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Bilkus v Stockler Brunton (A Firm) SCCO 11-Nov-2008
Master Gordon-Saker refused to permit the Solicitors to substitute their proposed amended bill, on the ground that he could not be satisfied that the error in describing the claim for andpound;50,000 as an uplift in relation to all the work that . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Bilkus v Stockler Brunton (A Firm) CA 16-Feb-2010
Solicitors appealed against the rejection of their claim for an uplift in their fees amounting to andpound;50,000, based on the value element in the transaction in the 1994 Order. The court had to decide whether the matter came under the rules as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.368635

Livingstone and another v Frasso: CA 9 Jul 1997

Solicitors appealed a wasted costs order. They appealed on the basis that the judge had not followed the appropriate procedure, which required a proper opportunity for the solicitors against an order is proposed, to show cause why the order should not be made. Before such an order can be made it must be shown that the solicitors have acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently, that costs have in fact been wasted and that the solicitors must be given notice of the complaints made against them, as a consequence of which the solicitors are entitled to be represented and to show cause why a wasted costs order should not be made.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2054

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.142451

Maguire, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland): SC 21 Mar 2018

The appellant faced a criminal trial. He was granted legal aid for two counsel. He asked for two particular junior counsel, but the certificate required him to instruct leading counsel and a junior. He objected that this deprived him of the right to his chosen counsel.
Held: The appeal failed. The purpose of a defendant’s right to choose counsel was in the contribution that right made to the achievement of a fair trial but it was not an autonomous right which fell outside that context. Article 6 did not give the accused a right to demand to have counsel of his choice at public expense, independently of the requirements of the interests of justice.
Lord Justice General said:
Article 6 does not invest an accused person with the right to demand that he have counsel of his choice at public expense, independently of the requirements of the interests of justice. If it can be shown that the interests of justice will best be served by having a requirement that, where a certificate for two counsel is issued, it will, in general, be better for an accused to be represented by both senior and junior counsel, a requirement that this be so cannot give rise to any violation of article 6. That the interests of justice will be best served in this way is beyond serious dispute, in my opinion. Senior counsel obtain that rank on the basis of an objective assessment of their professional expertise and experience. Rule 20.11 does no more than give effect to the desirability that defendants be represented at the highest possible standard, just as rule 4(3) of the 2012 Rules does.

Judges:

Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones JJSC

Citations:

[2018] WLR(D) 180, [2018] UKSC 17, [2018] 3 All ER 30, [2018] 1 WLR 1412, [2018] NI 102, 44 BHRC 307, UKSC 2015/0134

Links:

Bailii, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC 171019 am Video, SC 171019 pm video, WLRD, Bailii Summary

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights 6.2(c)

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Appeal From ( – A, Re Judicial Review QBNI 19-Jan-2015
The applicant, defendant in a proposed trial, objected that having been granted a legal aid order for two counsel, he had been unable to instruct the two junior counsel of his choice, but had rather been required to instruct leading counsel. . .
Cited – X v Norway ECHR 30-May-1975
Article 6, paragraph 3, fitt . c) of the Convention : First instance proceedings. This provision guarantees that proceedings against the accused will nor take place without adequate representation for the defence, but does not give the accused the . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No. 3 of 1999 HL 14-Dec-2000
An horrific rape had taken place. The defendant was arrested on a separate matter, tried and acquitted. He was tried under a false ID. His DNA sample should have been destroyed but wasn’t. Had his identity been known, his DNA could have been kept . .
Cited – Correia De Matos v Portugal ECHR 15-Nov-2001
The applicant had been committed for trial in Portugal for insulting a judge. The judge investigating that charge assigned a lawyer to represent him. Mr de Matos objected. He wanted to represent himself. He relied on article 6.3(c) of the . .
Cited – Croissant v Germany ECHR 25-Sep-1992
Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-3-c
‘[I]t is for the courts to decide whether the interests of justice require that the accused be defended by counsel appointed by them. When . .
Cited – K v Denmark ECHR 5-May-1993
A lawyer, Mr Reindel, was appointed by the High Court to act as defence counsel for the applicant. It was then discovered that Mr Reindel was to be called as a witness and his appointment was rescinded and another lawyer was appointed in his stead. . .
Cited – Mayzit v Russia ECHR 20-Jan-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 5-4; No violation of Art. 6-3-c; No violation of Art. 6-3-b; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award.
The applicant wished . .
Cited – Dzankovic v Germany ECHR 8-Dec-2009
The applicant complained that his request for his chosen representative to be designated official defence counsel had been refused.
Held: The interests of justice did not require that the applicant’s chosen counsel be appointed official . .
Cited – Dvorski v Croatia ECHR 20-Oct-2015
Grand Chamber: ‘As the Court has already held in its previous judgments, the right set out in article 6.3(c) of the Convention is one element, among others, of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings contained in article 6.1 (see . .
Cited – Addison v HM Advocate HCJ 8-Oct-2014
Appeal against conviction for murder: ‘on two grounds, namely; (1) that he suffered a miscarriage of justice as a result of defective representation; and (2) that while awaiting trial he was deprived of the opportunity to instruct senior counsel of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Legal Professions

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.608732

Addison v HM Advocate: HCJ 8 Oct 2014

Appeal against conviction for murder: ‘on two grounds, namely; (1) that he suffered a miscarriage of justice as a result of defective representation; and (2) that while awaiting trial he was deprived of the opportunity to instruct senior counsel of his choice.
Lord Justice General said: ‘The Law Society of Scotland Practice Rules 2011 provide that if a case requires appearance in a superior court, the solicitor must advise his client that it is for the client to decide whether a solicitor-advocate or counsel is instructed (rule B8.4.l(b)). That is a sound rule as far as it goes; but the decision of the client on [whether a solicitor advocate or counsel is instructed] must be an informed decision. To make such a decision the client must be advised of his options for representation. A mere recital of those options is no more than a formality if it is not supplemented by advice, a point on which the Practice Rules are silent. In my view, it is the duty of the accused’s solicitor to take all reasonable steps to ascertain which members of the Bar and solicitor advocates experienced in this area are, or may be, available to conduct the defence. Only then can a worthwhile decision on representation be made.
The observance of these duties may present the accused’s solicitor with a conflict of interest, especially if he is a solicitor advocate or if a senior member of his firm is a solicitor advocate. This court has already adverted to the latter problem in Woodside v HM Advocate 2009 SCCR 350 (at paras 71-74). It is a matter for concern that it continues. Even where there is no such obvious conflict of interest, the solicitor may nonetheless find it difficult to give wholly objective advice as to the choice of defender from those who are available. In the event, any advice that he gives may be thought to lack the appearance of objectivity.’

Judges:

Lord Justice General, Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Brodie

Citations:

[2014] ScotHC HCJAC – 110, 2014 GWD 32-626, 2014 SLT 995, 2015 JC 107, 2014 SCCR 608, 2014 SCL 835

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Maguire, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) SC 21-Mar-2018
The appellant faced a criminal trial. He was granted legal aid for two counsel. He asked for two particular junior counsel, but the certificate required him to instruct leading counsel and a junior. He objected that this deprived him of the right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.537443

Moseley v The Victoria Rubber Co: ChD 1886

There is no general professional privilege covering communications between a person and his patent agent. Communications between a client and his solicitor who was also the client’s patent attorney were not privileged if the solicitor received them in his capacity as a patent attorney.

Judges:

Chitty J

Citations:

(1886) 3 RPC 351

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Admn 14-Oct-2009
The company had obtained legal advice but had taken it from their accountants. The Revenue sought its disclosure, and the company said that as legal advice it was protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: The material was not protected. . .
Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another SC 23-Jan-2013
The appellants resisted disclosure to the revenue of advice it had received. It claimed legal advice privilege (LAP), though the advice was from its accountants.
Held: (Lords Sumption and Clarke dissenting) LAP applies to all communications . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.376225

Manzanilla Limited v Corton Property and Investments Limited; John Mciver (Southampton) Limited; Rootbrights Limited and Halliwell Landau (a Firm): CA 7 Jul 1997

After settlement between parties of a wasted costs application, a note may be put to the judge where this was needed in order to clear the reputation of lawyer involved.

Citations:

Times 04-Aug-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2037

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Manzanilla Limited v Corton Property and Investments Limited; John MacIver (Southport) Limited; Rootbrights Limited and Halliwell Landau (a Firm) CA 13-Nov-1996
Millett LJ set out the principles applicable to a deposit paid on a land transaction being held by a stakeholder: ”Where a stakeholder is involved, there are normally two separate contracts to be considered. There is first the bilateral contract . .
See Also – Manzanilla Limited v Corton Property and Investments Limited John Maciver (Southport) Limited Rootbrights Limited Halliwell Landau (a Firm) CA 23-Apr-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.142434

Ashman v Severn Trent Water Ltd and National Rivers Authority: CA 26 Jun 1997

The solicitor appealed against a refusal of the court to allow him to come off the record in acting for the plaintiff. The court had said that since the plaintiff was legally aided, the solicitor must first deal with the Legal Aid certificate.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Legal Aid

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.142377

Kenward v Adams: ChD 29 Nov 1975

The court set out certain precautions which might be taken by a solicitor drawing up a will for an aged testator or one who has been seriously ill. One such precaution was that if there was an earlier will it should be examined and any proposed alterations should be discussed with the testator. It is prudent for legal advisors to seek the opinion of a medical practitioner (preferably one experienced in the field) and, if the practitioner is satisfied that the person does have the requisite capacity, he should act as one of the attesting witnesses.

Judges:

Templeman J

Citations:

Times 29-Nov-1975, [1975] CLY 3591

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hoff and others v Atherton CA 19-Nov-2004
Appeals were made against pronouncements for the validity of a will and against the validity of an earlier will. The solicitor drawing the will was to receive a benefit, and had requested an independent solicitor to see the testatrix and ensure that . .
Cited – Potter v Potter FdNI 5-Feb-2003
The testator’s capacity to make his will was challenged. He had lived alone without electricity, but his doctor said he was known to him and was ‘with it’. Evidence from a member of staff at the solicitor’s office supported the doctor’s description. . .
Cited – Robin Sharp and Malcolm Bryson v Grace Collin Adam and Emma Adam and others CA 28-Apr-2006
The testator suffered secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. It was said that he did not have testamentary capacity. He had lost the power of speech but communicated by a speech board. The solicitor had followed appropriate standards in attesting . .
Cited – Key and Another v Key and Others ChD 5-Mar-2010
The will was challenged for want of testamentary capacity. The testator was 89 years old, and the will was made within a week of the death of his wife of 65 years and without the solicitor having taken any proper steps to satisfy himself as to the . .
Approved – Buckenham v Dickinson ChD 1992
The testator was very old, partially blind and deaf. A next door neighbour who had great advantage of long experience in old peoples’ homes, indicated that the testator was of such poor sight and hearing that he was virtually cut off from everything . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Legal Professions

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.219627

Lamont v Burton: CA 9 May 2007

The defendant had settled the claim for damages for personal injury. His payment in had been rejected, but the claimant won a smaller sum at trial. He now argued that the claimant should not receive the full 100% costs uplift provided.
Held: The defendant’s appeal was dismissed. ‘Section III of Part 45 contains a carefully balanced scheme for the award of success fees in road traffic accident cases. The object of the scheme is to provide certainty and avoid litigation over the amount of success fees to be allowed to successful parties. The only circumstances in which the court may allow a success fee different from that prescribed by rule 45.16 in relation to solicitors’ fees are those described in rule 45.18.’

Judges:

May LJ, Dyson LJ, Smith LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 429, Times 07-Jun-2007, [2007] 1 WLR 2814, [2007] 4 Costs LR 574, [2008] RTR 4, [2007] CP Rep 33, [2007] 3 All ER 173, [2007] PIQR Q8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 45.16(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Donald Campbell v Pollak HL 1927
A plaintiff who goes takes his case to trial has no right to costs until an order is made, but if an order is made the court shall order that they follow the event unless in the circumstances of the case some other order should be made. It is only . .
Approved – Butt v Nizami QBD 9-Feb-2006
The court considered the effect of negotiations on costs claims: ‘Changes were made to the Rules of Court. Some of these changes, and in particular the provisions of Sections II to V of CPR45, were introduced following ‘industry wide’ discussions . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kilby v Gawith CA 19-May-2008
No discretion for refusal of costs
The court was asked whether it has a discretion under Rule 45.11(1) whether or not to award a claimant, who has entered into a conditional fee agreement with his solicitor, the fixed success fee of 12.5%.
Held: The court had no discretion to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.251772

The Civil Aviation Authority v Jet2Com Ltd, Regina (on The Application of): CA 28 Jan 2020

This appeal raises important issues concerning Legal Advice Privilege, notably:
i) whether, for a communication to fall within the scope of that privilege, it must have had the dominant purpose of seeking or giving legal advice; and
ii) in the light of the answer to (i), the proper approach to determining the privileged status of email communications between multiple parties where one of the senders or recipients is a lawyer.
It also potentially raises issues concerning the proper approach to the collateral waiver of privilege in respect of documents otherwise non-disclosable, as the result of the voluntary disclosure of other privileged documents.

Judges:

Lord Justice Hickinbottom

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 35

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.646342

Skjevesland v Geveran Trading Co Ltd: CA 30 Oct 2002

The debtor’s wife was personally acquainted with counsel for the petitioner in his bankruptcy examination. He sought that it be set aside.
Held: Whereas a judge had a duty to be independent of the parties, no such duty fell on counsel. A court might disqualify counsel where there was a complaint as to use, or disclosure of confidential material in his possession, or other exceptional material. CPR 1.3 requires the parties to ‘help the court to further the overriding objective’. That duty extends to the legal advisers of the parties, including advocates.

Judges:

Arden LJ, Schiemann LJ, Dyson LJ

Citations:

Times 13-Nov-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1567, [2003] 1 All ER 1, [2003] 1 WLR 912, [2003] BPIR 238

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 1.3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
Appeal from – Skjevesland v Geveran Trading Company Limited ChD 2002
The registrar had decided that the debtor’s centre of main interests was situated in Switzerland.
Held: Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 did not displace the bankruptcy jurisdiction which (as the registrar found) the High Court would . .

Cited by:

Cited – Richard Buxton (Solicitors) v Mills-Owens and Another CA 23-Feb-2010
The solicitors felt that the instructions received from their client were to pursue points which neither they nor counsel thought were properly arguable. They withdrew from the case, and now appealed against a refusal of their costs on the basis . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Human Rights

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.178073

The Bank of London v Tyrrell: CA 30 Jun 1859

A solicitor is accountable to his clients for the benefits which he may have derived clandestinely in transactions in which he was professionally engaged.
A solicitor was active in founding a banking company. Before its establishment he entered into a secret arrangement with a stranger, that the, latter should purchase some property eligible for the banking house on a joint speculation. After its establishment the company purchased part of the premises for their banking house, not knowing that their solicitor was interested in it.
Held: The solicitor must account to the company for all the profit made by him by the whole transaction ; but that the stranger was under no such liability.
Sir John Romilly MR said that the solicitor had held on trust for the client both (i) his interest in (and therefore his subsequent share of the proceeds of sale of) the Hall, and (ii) with ‘very considerable hesitation’, his interest in the adjoining land.

Judges:

Sir John Romilly MR

Citations:

[1859] EngR 789, (1859) 27 Beav 273, (1859) 54 ER 107

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Tyrrell v The Bank Of London And Sir J v Shelley And Others HL 27-Feb-1862
A solicitor retained to act for a company in the course of formation secretly arranged to benefit from his prospective client’s anticipated acquisition of a building called the ‘Hall of Commerce’ by obtaining from the owner a 50% beneficial interest . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Equity

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.288141

In Re A Solicitors (Wasted Costs Order) (No 1 of 1994): CACD 27 Jun 1995

A witness answering and resisting a summons is a sufficient party for ‘wasted costs’ order purposes.

Citations:

Times 27-Jun-1995, Gazette 19-Jul-1995

Statutes:

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 111, Costs in Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 (1991 No 789)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.81682

Adams v The Law Society of England and Wales and Others: QBD 17 Apr 2012

The claimant solicitor sought an extension of time for filing his proceedings seeking to challenge the way that the respondent had handled their intervention in his law practice.

Judges:

Foskett J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 980 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452713

Polak v Marchioness of Winchester: CA 1956

The paying party objected that Counsel’s bill had not been paid at the time the solicitors’ bill was presented.
Held: The court had an inherent jurisdiction to permit a solicitor to withdraw his incorrect bill of costs and to substitute a fresh correct bill. Jenkins LJ said: ‘I entirely agree with the judge when he said that one has to take a strict view to maintain the necessary safeguards, and nothing I say is to be regarded as suggesting to solicitors that they can be careless or unbusiness like in a matter such as this, and then as of course apply for and receive the assistance of the court. It is only in exceptional cases, cases of special circumstances, of genuine mistake of inadvertence, that assistance ought to be given.’

Judges:

Jenkins LJ

Citations:

[1956] 1 WLR 818

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1843

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bilkus v Stockler Brunton (A Firm) CA 16-Feb-2010
Solicitors appealed against the rejection of their claim for an uplift in their fees amounting to andpound;50,000, based on the value element in the transaction in the 1994 Order. The court had to decide whether the matter came under the rules as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.401611

Pittman v Prudential Deposit Bank Ltd: CA 1896

The parties had agreed to assign the judgment debt to the solicitor acting.
Held: The agreement was champertous as an assignment of an interest in litigation, and therefore was void, having been made before judgment and even though it had been made bona fide.
Lord Esher MR said: ‘In order to preserve the honour and honesty of the profession it was a rule of law which the court had laid down and would always insist upon that a solicitor could not make an arrangement of any kind with his client during the litigation he was conducting so as to give him any advantage in respect of the result of that litigation.’

Judges:

Lord Esher MR

Citations:

(1896) 13 TLR 110, (1896) 41 Sol Jo 129

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) CA 1975
The court was asked whether Moir would be entitled to legal aid to bring a derivative action on behalf of a company against its majority shareholder.
Held: A minority shareholder bringing a derivative action on behalf of a company could obtain . .
Cited – Sibthorpe and Morris v London Borough of Southwark CA 25-Jan-2011
The court was asked as to the extent to which the ancient rule against champerty prevents a solicitor agreeing to indemnify his claimant client against any liability for costs which she may incur against the defendant in the litigation in which the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Contract

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.444823

Calley v Richards: CA 8 Jul 1854

Communications between a person and his legal adviser, who had been a solicitor, but at the time of the communications had, without his knowledge ceased to practise, are privileged. The communication had reference to the validity of a will, and passed between the Plaintiff and his legal adviser between the date of the will and the death of the testator. It was objected that they could not have taken place in contemplation of a suit respecting the validity of the will, and were therefore not protected.
Held: This did not take them out of the rule.

Judges:

Sir John Romilly MR

Citations:

[1854] EngR 734, (1854) 19 Beav 401, (1854) 52 ER 406

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Disapproved – Fountain, Administrator of Crump, v Young, 28-Nov-1807
If the client mistakenly thinks the person he is obtaining legal advice from is a lawyer but the person is not in fact a lawyer then no privilege attaches . .

Cited by:

Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Admn 14-Oct-2009
The company had obtained legal advice but had taken it from their accountants. The Revenue sought its disclosure, and the company said that as legal advice it was protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: The material was not protected. . .
Cited – Ford, Regina (on The Application of) v The Financial Services Authority Admn 11-Oct-2011
The claimant sought, through judicial review, control over 8 emails sent by them to their lawyers. They claimed legal advice privilege, but the emails contained advice sent by their chartered accountants. The defendant had sought to use them in the . .
Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another SC 23-Jan-2013
The appellants resisted disclosure to the revenue of advice it had received. It claimed legal advice privilege (LAP), though the advice was from its accountants.
Held: (Lords Sumption and Clarke dissenting) LAP applies to all communications . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.293591

G v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission: SIC 14 Dec 2011

Identity and relationship of decision-makers – Mr G requested from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (the SLCC) information as to whether a named person was personally acquainted with certain decision-makers and/or members of the SLCC board, and also the identities of those involved in making a particular decision. The SLCC did not respond and Mr G wrote to the SLCC requiring it to carry out a review. Following a review, as a result of which the SLCC responded to the effect that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the first request and considered the second request to be vexatious, Mr G remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that the SLCC did not hold any information falling within the scope of Mr G’s first request. He also accepted that the second request was vexatious and that, by virtue of section 14(1) of FOISA, the SLCC was not obliged to comply with it.
However, the Commissioner also found that in failing to provide a response to Mr G’s request within 20 working days, the SLCC breached section 10(1) of FOISA. He did not require the SLCC to take any action in relation to this failure.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 246 – 2011)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 1(1) 1(4) 1(6)

Scotland, Information, Legal Professions

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451557

Quinn Direct Insurance Ltd v The Law Society of England and Wales: ChD 23 Oct 2009

The defendant had intervened in a solicitors’ firm insured by the claimants. The claimants sought access to files and accounting records so that it could defend insurance claims. The defendant denied access to files other than those on which claims had been made.
Held: The claim failed. The claimant put two arguments.
Q said they were within the stautory regime for this purpose by virtue of the Rules. Scott J rejected this saying: ‘whilst there is a public interest in maintaining an insurance policy the purpose of the regulatory procedure is to enable the Law Society to regulate solicitors. There are many potential reasons for intervention or investigation which to do not affect insurance. There is not in my view a sufficient linkage between the clearly regulatory role of the Law Society to that of insurers to confer on the insurers an unfettered right to access to the solicitors documents. The Law Society is entitled to that access in its role as being a supervisory body of solicitors and to ensure compliance with the obligations as set out in the Solicitors Act 1974 and any subordinate rules arising thereunder. Not all concerns that arise under that will be matched with corresponding interest for the insurers. The whole purpose of the present application is not to exercise any kind of supervisory role in the conduct of the firm; it is merely an attempt to gather evidence for use to enable the Claimant to refuse an indemnity. Its purpose therefore is completely at odds with the regulatory role and in particular the insurers’ alleged role in it. The purpose of the application is to obtain documents in the expectation that material will be found so as to refuse an indemnity to Mr Ikoku. The public at large will therefore be worse off if the exercise is carried out as the Claimant believes it will be as there will be no indemnity.’
Q also claimed that the insurance contract gave them this right. Smith J denied this: ‘In my view when looking at the clause in its entirety clause 6.2 a) 4) is not a freestanding obligation to provide information [and] assistance whenever the insurer requires it. It is clear that when one looks at the clause as a whole the provision is dealing with an occurrence which might give rise to the likelihood of a claim. In that eventuality the obligations under 6.2(a)-(c) arise. Here there is no claim; the documents sought are where there has not yet been any claim. I am reinforced in that in my view by reference to the Court of Appeal in Gan Insurance Co Ltd v Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd (No 3) [2002] ECWA Civ 248. It is of course necessary to be cautious in having regard to a decision on the construction of a different document. What the Court of Appeal made clear however (see paragraphs 24-26 of the judgment of Mance LJ (as he then was)) is that the insured is only required to provide information to assist in a claim that is already made. An insured is not required to provide information solely for investigating whether or not a breach of the insured obligations can be established.’

Judges:

Peter Smith J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2588 (Ch), [2010] Lloyd’s Rep IR 336, [2010] Lloyd’s Rep PN 130

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1974, The Solicitors’ Indemnity Insurance Rules 2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gan Insurance Company Ltd v The Tai Ping Insurance Company Ltd (No 3) CA 1-Mar-2002
Tai Ping had placed facultative insurance with Gan. The substantial risks were re-insured through various agencies. When a claim arose it was repudiated alleging misrepresentation. Gan asserted that Tai Ping had failed to co-operate in the . .

Cited by:

Appeal From – Quinn Direct Insurance Ltd v The Law Society of England and Wales CA 14-Jul-2010
Q had provided professional indemnity insurance to a firm of solicitors in which the Law Society had intervened. Claims were made against the firm, but Q declined to pay, saying that the apparently fraudulent activities of the firm fell outside the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Insurance

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.420762

Hole and Pugsley v Sumption: ChD 5 Dec 2001

The applicant sought to be excused from performance of an undertaking given as a solicitor. They relied upon the Citadel Management case as authority that, if they took timely steps to warn the person in whose favour the undertaking had been given of a supervening change of circumstances, they could be excused performance.
Held: The case was no such authority. Such a view was neither necessary nor obvious and, in the instant case would destroy the business efficacy of the undertaking.

Judges:

Mr Justice Hart

Citations:

Times 29-Jan-2002, Gazette 06-Mar-2002, [2001] EWHC Ch 465

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Citadel Management Inc v Equal Ltd and Others CA 23-Sep-1998
A solicitor undertaking to repay client funds but who was dependent upon others to fulfil that undertaking and failed to warn of impossibility of fulfilment, was properly found in contempt of court and imprisoned for six months. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.166963

Lord Chancellor v Ian Henery Solicitors Ltd: QBD 8 Dec 2011

The court heard a challenge to arrangements within the graduated fees scheme for payment of defence lawyers, and in particular ‘when does a trial begin?’ and whether a case should be paid as a ‘trial’ or as a ‘cracked trial’. The trial had been arranged and brought on, but after the jury was sworn, the judge allowed additional counts, and eventually the case was stood down. Under the payments scheme the arrangements were more lucrative to an advocate if the trial was said to be cracked, but to litigators if not.

Judges:

Spencer J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3246 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007

Citing:

Cited – Lord Chancellor v Rees and others QBD 19-Dec-2008
Sir Charles Gray considered an appeal against the findings of a costs judge, saying: ‘it appears to me that it is incumbent on the Lord Chancellor in any appeal to the High Court to identify some question of law or principle which arises, since the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid, Legal Professions

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.449897