England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> Paragon Finance Ltd v King [2000] EWHC 9011 (Costs) (26 May 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2000/9011.html
Cite as: [2000] EWHC 9011 (Costs)

---

[New search] [Help]

---

This summary of a judgment has been obtained from the Supreme Court Costs Office pages on the HM Courts Service web site. The citation used by BAILII is not an officially approved citation. The full text of the judgment may have an official Neutral Citation issued by the court, and may be available elsewhere on BAILII.

 

 

 No.11 of 2000

Paragon Finance Ltd v Rosling King

26 May 2000

Mr Justice Hart Sitting Without Assessors

In an urgent interlocutory application the Judge held that CPR rule 25.1(1)(m) gave the court jurisdiction to order solicitors to hand over documents to their clients in connection with pending litigation, notwithstanding the lien which the solicitors were exercising over those documents. The court considered, but did not decide, whether there was an independent equitable jurisdiction which overrode the solicitor’s lien where the claimant had terminated the retainer, as opposed to the solicitor discharging himself where it is clear, for instance, from Ismail v Richards Butler (A Firm) (1996) 3 WLR 129, that the jurisdiction did exist. The Judge felt however that it was not the proper case to make a decision on the conflicting authorities, as to whether that power applied where it was the client who terminated the solicitor’s retainer. Considering all the relevant factors the Judge decided on the evidence that the extent to which the solicitors would be prejudiced by not having the benefit of payment in full and having to go through a detailed assessment, balanced against the prejudice to the claimants in over paying the solicitors, and that the solicitors could not repay the over payment was unrealistic, in that there was no evidence to suggest the solicitors would not be able to do that, and accordingly, on the facts, the Judge dismissed the application.