Robins & Anor v Furniss

Each partner in a solicitor’s firm is entitled to access the firm’s papers and client files held by another partner. The requesting partner’s motive is irrelevant to that entitlement. A partner cannot refuse access because the files are needed to protect clients’ interests or to manage an impending departure from the firm. Those matters should be addressed separately, including by providing copies where necessary. Where a clear refusal makes proceedings necessary, and the respondent changes position only after the application is issued, the successful applicants may recover their costs even if the underlying relief is later provided.

The applicants were partners in a solicitors’ firm. The respondent, another partner who intended to leave the firm, had taken eight client files home during the COVID-19 restrictions. The applicants sought delivery of the files, asserting their entitlement as partners to access them.

The respondent initially maintained that she would return the files by her departure date but was not required to return them earlier. After the application was issued, she agreed to return all the files. The court therefore had to determine the costs of the application, while the respondent conceded the applicants’ legal entitlement to the files.

1. Entitlement to access. As a matter of partnership law, each partner was entitled to access the firm’s papers, including its client files. The applicants’ motives in requesting access were irrelevant. The respondent’s wish to continue serving clients, notify them of her departure and act in accordance with her professional responsibilities did not justify refusing access.
2. Separate protection of the respondent’s interests. The respondent remained entitled to access the files herself. If she required continued access, the proper course was to accept the applicants’ entitlement and request copies. The applicants had offered to copy the files, and there was no evidence that they intended to prevent the respondent from accessing them thereafter.
3. Costs discretion. The application was necessary because the respondent had expressly refused to return the files before her departure and had stated that the applicants had no basis to request them. It was not precipitate. The applicants were not required to await client notification or the respondent’s departure, particularly where their entitlement was clear and the respondent’s position changed only after the application and supporting evidence were served.
4. Order. The applicants were entitled to their costs of the application and the hearing.