Singh v Sinel

A barrister’s fees may be recoverable from a foreign lawyer on an express or implied contractual basis, or by way of quantum meruit. The former rule concerning counsel’s fees as an honorarium does not prevent recovery where the engagement is with a foreign lawyer rather than an instructing solicitor, particularly after Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, section 61(1). Where services were requested, accepted and used, the court may assess a reasonable fee objectively. A genuine dispute about whether personal liability was agreed ordinarily requires a trial, but the court may determine quantum summarily where the evidence permits a fair assessment and a separate inquiry would be disproportionate.

The claimant, a barrister, claimed unpaid fees for advice and drafting undertaken for the defendant, a Jersey advocate, in connection with the Trant matter. The defendant accepted that a reasonable fee would be payable if he were legally liable, but denied any express or implied contract and contended that the fees were merely an honorarium. He also disputed the amount claimed.

The claimant applied to strike out the defence or obtain summary judgment. The central issues were whether the defendant had personally agreed to pay the fees, whether the claimant could recover on a quantum meruit basis if no express contract existed, and whether the court could assess the reasonable sum without directing a separate inquiry.

1. Express agreement. The conflicting evidence about the conversation in which the instructions were given created a genuine triable issue as to whether the defendant personally agreed to be liable for the claimant’s fees. The defendant’s later conduct and inconsistencies might make his case weak, but they did not justify summary determination of that issue.
2. Annexe G1 and the honorarium doctrine. Annexe G1 to the Bar Code of Conduct applied to engagements between barristers and solicitors. It did not apply to this engagement, since the defendant was not a solicitor. The rule that counsel’s fees were traditionally an honorarium concerned the relationship between barrister and instructing solicitor and did not govern the present engagement. Further, section 61(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 abolished any rule preventing a barrister from contracting for services.
3. Quantum meruit. The defendant had requested, accepted and used the claimant’s services and had benefited from them. In the ordinary case, that entitled the claimant to an objectively assessed reasonable fee under the law of obligations, whether or not an express contract was proved. Where an hourly rate had been agreed, the relevant assessment was the reasonable amount of time required for the work, rather than simply the time recorded.
4. Assessment of quantum. There was substantial evidence about the work required and undertaken. Having regard to the amount in dispute and the cost of a separate inquiry, the court considered that a summary assessment was consistent with the overriding objective. The defendant was ordered to pay the accepted reasonable sum together with the contested sum reduced by 10%, with interest at 3% until judgment.

Not stated in the judgment.