Dean & Dean (A Firm) v Angel Airlines SA & Ors, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, March 11, 2009, [2009] EWHC 447 (Ch)
Linked as:
Extract
Dean & Dean (A Firm) v Angel Airlines SA & Ors, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, March 11, 2009, [2009] EWHC 447 (Ch)
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 447 (Ch)
Case No: HC08C02982156/SD/2007420/SD/2008427/SD/2008IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECHANCERY DIVISIONRoyal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLDate: 11th March 2009Before :THE HON MR JUSTICE PATTEN- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dean & Dean did not appear and were not representedMr Stephen Robins (instructed by Lyndales) appeared for Angel Airlines SAMr Nigel Tozzi QC (instructed by Beale and Company Solicitors LLP) appeared for LyndalesMr Jami Tehrani appeared in personDr Shahrokh Mireskandari did not appear and was not representedMr Edward Francis (instructed by Pitmans) appeared for Mr BellMs Caroline Turbin appeared in personHearing dates: 19th - 22nd January 2009- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JudgmentThe Hon Mr Justice Patten : Introduction1. This judgment deals with six applications which, on 17th October 2008, Mann J ordered to be heard together. They all relate to a dispute between Angel Airlines S.A. (``Angel'') and its former solicitors, Messrs Dean & Dean, about the size of a bill rendered by Dean & Dean on 24th May 2004 for work carried out between November 2001 and May 2004 in connection with a dispute between Angel and British Aerospace (``BAE''). The bill was in the sum of £444,705.2. Angel is a Romanian company now in liquidation. In November 2001 it instructed a London solicitor, Mr Jami Tehrani (who practised on his own account under the name Tehrani & Co), to act for it in the dispute with BAE. In March 2002 Mr Tehrani changed the name of his practice to Dean & Dean but continued as a sole practitioner. After litigation in Romania, the dispute with BAE was eventually compromised and on 23rd April 2004 Angel and BAE entered into a deed of settlement under which Angel returned two aircraft leased from BAE and BAE agreed to pay the sum of US$529,609.37 to Angel. Out of this sum various expenses including payments of fees due to airport authorities were to be met with the balance being retained by Angel. 3. On 6th May 2004 BAE paid the sum into Dean & Dean's client account pursuant to the settlement agreement. Dean & Dean thereupon issued and sent to Mr Azad (Angel's majority shareholder) what was described as an interim bill for £140,000 endorsed with the words ``transferred from client account with thanks''. This was followed by a letter of 11th May in which Dean & Dean estimated their costs to be in excess of £200,000 and then by the bill for £444,705 issued on 24th May.4. After deducting payments made under the settlement agreement, the amount held to Angel's credit in Dean & Dean's client account was reduced to US$398,702. Faced with Dean & Dean's claim to apply this sum in settlement of the fees due to them, an extraordinary meeting of Angel's shareholders took place in Bucharest on 10th May 2004 at which resolutions were passed appointing Messrs Lyndales to take over conduct of the dispute with BAE and for all files relating to that matter to be transferred to them from Dean & Dean. The company also resolved to transfer the funds received from BAE to Lyndales' client account and to withdraw Dean & Dean's instructions.5. It is common ground that this was effective to terminate Dean & Dean's retainer but it left unresolved the dispute about their fees. On 11th May 2004 Lyndales wrote to Dean & Dean saying that they had been instructed by Angel in their place. This led to an exchange of correspondence in which Dean & Dean accused Angel of changing solicitors in an attempt to avoid payment of their fees. On 12th May Angel informed Dean & Dean that the company was unwilling to pay the amounts billed and on 13th May Lyndales wrote to Dean & Dean complaining about the level of fees charged and saying that it was professionally improper for the firm to seek to transfer the £140,000 from its client to its office account without Angel's approval. On the same day they notified Dean & Dean that an application would be made for an injunction to restrain them from dealing with the funds. 6. This application came before Grigson J on 14th May when he made an order requiring Dean & Dean to pay the US$398,702.37 held to Angel's account into court pending judgment in the intended proceedings. The claim form in these proceedings (claim number HQ04X01461) was issued on 17th May (``the 2004 action'') and seeks an account of all monies in the possession or control of Dean & Dean and an order for their delivery up. It does not include a claim for a Solicitors Act taxation of Dean & Dean's bill but Dean & Dean gave an undertaking as part of the order made on 14th May to serve on Angel a Solicitors Act bill of costs. Under s.69 of the Solicitors Act 1974 the delivery of such a bill is, of course, a pre-requisite to an action by the solicitor to recover his costs but the client may apply under s.70(1) ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
