D R Sheridan LLP v Higgins & anr [2012] EWHC 547 (Ch)

Analysis

C left a will appointing her son and daughter as executors and benefiting her family. Initially, both the son and the daughter instructed a solicitor, D. There was a dispute as to £200,000 which had been transferred out of the estate (although it was not clear when) by the daughter. D suggested that the daughter obtain independent advice, which she did. D was then only instructed by the son. The son brought proceedings for an interim injunction preserving the £200,000, which were compromised but the ultimate issue of ownership not finally resolved. There was a breakdown in relations between D and the son and the son instructed other solicitors. The son’s new solicitors requested D’s file, subject to the payment of his fees. There was a dispute whereby the son on the one hand asserted a sole right to the file (subject to the payment of fees – which he was happy to pay), whereas D and the daughter maintained that the daughter was also entitled to the file. D interpleaded asking for:

1. (a) a declaration that D was entitled to retain a lien for its unpaid costs;
2. (b) an order that the son and daughter make their claims in respect of the file and that D would abide by the order of the court; and
3. (c) directions as to how D should deal with his file subject to his lien.

Held

1. (1) After the daughter withdrew her instructions from D, the son was the only person who was providing instructions to D and therefore his file from that date onwards was confidential to the son. D was wrong to prevent the transfer of the file on the (incorrect) basis that the daughter had equal rights to that of the son.
2. (2) In any event, the son had suggested a sensible compromise solution whereby any rights of the daughter were preserved.
3. (3) The daughter had tried to exploit the position to her advantage.
4. (4) The only person who was not worthy of criticism was the son.
5. (5) D’s costs of in excess of £35,000 in relation to the claim were shockingly high.

JUDGMENT MR JUSTICE HENDERSON: [1] This is an application by a firm of solicitors, D R Sheridan LLP, seeking declaratory and interpleader relief in relation to (a) their unpaid costs, and (b) their client file, for the period from December 2008 until February 2010 during which (as D R Sheridan & Co) they acted in …

Continue reading "D R Sheridan LLP v Higgins & anr [2012] EWHC 547 (Ch)"