A claim for non-payment of fees by a family silk and junior counsel instructed under the public access scheme has been unanimously dismissed by the Court of Appeal
Glaser and Miller v Atay [2024] EWCA Civ 1111 concerned contracts between Michael Glaser KC and Victoria Miller, both of Fourteen, and their client Katharine Atay, to act as counsel in financial remedy proceedings against her former husband. Glaser’s fee was £90,000 (excl VAT) and Miller’s was £45,000 (excl VAT), to be paid in instalments.
The contract provided for a fixed fee payable even if the ten-day hearing was adjourned. When it was adjourned, however, Atay disinstructed counsel and refused to pay any more fees. The barristers sued.
Lord Justice Nugee held the terms of the contracts were unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, agreeing with the High Court’s decision that the contract term ‘caused a substantial imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations’.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
