header-logo header-logo

08 December 2011
Issue: 7493 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lien refused

Solicitor has no more right to assert a lien to secure his fees than his client has to use the money

A solicitor has no more right to assert a lien to secure his fees than his client has to use the money, the Court of Appeal has held.

In Withers v Langbar International [2011] EWCA Civ 1419, [2011] All ER (D) 22 (Dec) Withers’ clients, Rybak, had been sued by Langbar and settled for £30m, which was almost equal to Rybak’s worldwide assets. Under the settlement agreement, a property in Monaco would be sold and €7.6m paid from the proceeds to Langbar, regardless of the sale price. A court order provided that the proceeds would be paid into an escrow account.

The property sold for €13m, which left about €5m in the account.

Rybak started a new action concerning the settlement against Langbar, who counterclaimed. Langbar succeeded to the tune of €3.8m, plus €0.9m in costs. Rybak applied for an order that £400,000 be released from the account to pay Withers’ legal costs. Withers asserted a lien or equitable charge over the money in the account. The court held that Withers had a common law lien over the money claimed, but dismissed the claim that Withers had an equitable charge. Langbar appealed and Withers cross-appealed.

Langbar successfully argued that the money was in the account and would remain available subject to the court’s directions.

Upholding Langbar’s appeal, Lord Justice Lloyd said: “The solicitor can have no better right to assert a lien over the money than his client has to use the money for payment of the sums due to the solicitor…it was still necessary for the Rybaks to obtain the consent of Langbar to any withdrawal from the account of any sum to be paid out by way of legal expenses...That seems to me to make it impossible to contend that the money held in the account at that stage was available for payment of legal costs by the Rybaks. If it was not, then I do not see how it can have been subject to a lien to secure the payment of such costs on the part of Withers.”

Issue: 7493 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll