West London Law Ltd v Sandhu & Anor

A solicitor’s equitable lien depends on the client’s responsibility for the solicitor’s charges and on an identifiable fund to which the lien can attach. Where work is performed under legal aid and the client has no personal liability for the costs, the ordinary lien remedy is unavailable. Earlier obiter reasoning cannot create an exception to that principle. For privately funded work, a claim need not use technical language, provided the pleading identifies the relevant fund and alleges conduct affecting the solicitor’s security. A pleading should not be struck out where it sufficiently discloses the alleged security and cause of action, even if greater clarity would have been desirable.

This was an appeal from an order of Deputy Master Lloyd dated 4 October 2018, which conditionally struck out a claim and directed that it continue under Part 7. The claimant law firm sought payment of costs incurred while acting for the respondents’ father under legal aid and for one respondent privately after the father’s death.

The claim followed a settlement between the respondents which relinquished enforcement of costs orders obtained in earlier property litigation. The claimant alleged that the settlement deprived it of security for its fees. The central issues were whether the legally aided work could support a solicitor’s lien and whether the claim concerning privately funded work was adequately pleaded under CPR r.3.4(2)(a) and (b).

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed so far as it concerned the legally aided work and allowed so far as it concerned the privately funded work.
2. The equitable lien described in Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Limited v Haven Insurance Company Limited [2018] 1 WLR 2052 requires a client who is responsible for the solicitor’s charges, an identifiable fund, and conduct sufficiently affecting the payer’s conscience. The fund may be a chose in action, such as a settlement agreement or court order.
3. Because the legally aided client had no personal liability for the costs, the usual conditions for a solicitor’s lien were absent. The additional observations of Lord Denning MR in Manley v The Law Society [1981] 1 WLR 335 were obiter, were not agreed by the other judges, and did not establish an exception for legally aided work. Section 28(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and regulation 13 of the Civil Legal Aid (Statutory Charge) Regulations 2013 did not alter that conclusion.
4. For the privately funded work, the alleged fund was sufficiently identified by the pleaded rights to enforce the costs orders and the allegation that the settlement rendered those rights valueless or less secure. Technical terminology such as lien or equitable charge was unnecessary.
5. The pleading therefore disclosed reasonable grounds and was not shown to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings within CPR r.3.4(2)(a) or (b). The claim could proceed in relation to the privately funded work.

• High Court (Chancery Division): Appeal from the conditional strike-out order of Deputy Master Lloyd dated 4 October 2018. The appeal was dismissed in relation to legally aided work and allowed in relation to privately funded work.