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:
- (a) a declaration that D was entitled to retain a lien for its unpaid costs;
- (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
- (c) directions as to how D should deal with his file subject to his lien.
Held
- (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) In any event, the son had suggested a sensible compromise solution whereby any rights of the daughter were preserved.
- (3) The daughter had tried to exploit the position to her advantage.
- (4) The only person who was not worthy of criticism was the son.
- (5) D’s costs of in excess of £35,000 in relation to the claim were shockingly high.
Continue reading "D R Sheridan LLP v Higgins & anr [2012] EWHC 547 (Ch)"