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

WTLR Issue: June 2012 #120

D R SHERIDAN LLP

V

1. EDWARD HIGGINS

2. JOANNA WOODS

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 …
This content is only available to members.

Counsel Details

(Mark Studer Wilberforce Chambers, 8 New Square, Lincoln’s Inn, London WC2A 3QP, tel 020 7306 0102, e-mail chambers@wilberforce.co.uk), instructed by D R Sheridan LLP (106 High Street, Bushey WD23 3DE, tel 020 8950 6768, e-mail drs@sheridan.org.uk), for the claimant.

Nicole Sandells (4 New Square, Lincoln’s Inn, London WC2A 3RJ, tel 020 7822 2000, e-mail general@4newsquare.com), instructed by Boyes Turner LLP (Abbots House, Abbey Street, Reading RG1 3BD, tel 0118 959 7711, e-mail enquiries@boyesturner.com), for the first defendant.

Karen Shuman (1 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1LF, tel 0845 634 6666, e-mail clerks@1chancerylane.com), instructed by Barnes & Partners (38 Bridge Street, Pinner HA5 3JF, tel 020 8866 5566), for the second defendant.

Legislation Referenced

  • CPR Schedule 1 RSC Order 17