The Supreme Court will this week resolve a dispute over solicitors’ entitlement to fees in a decision that could have wide effects on the claims sector. A ruling tomorrow in Bott & Co Solicitors v Ryanair DAC will establish what limits can be extended to lawyers to protect their fees.

The issue arose in 2016 when the budget airline began paying compensation directly to clients of Cheshire-based Bott & Co after the firm had sent a letter before action for a flight delay claim. Before that, payment would be made to the firm’s client account and fees would be deducted before the balance of the sum was paid to the client.

Ryanair said it was fairer to deal with the delayed customer directly and to pay compensation to them. The firm issued proceedings, arguing it had an equitable lien over its fees.

A Ryanair plane on a runway

Ryanair changed its approach in 2016 to pay flight delay compensation directly to passengers

Source: Alamy

The High Court and Court of Appeal rejected the firm’s argument and dismissed its claim. Bott & Co then appealed to the Supreme Court, with a one-day hearing held last May.

The case is expected to have wider consequences for all firms handling small claims as to what protection they have over their fees. Since the Ryanair claim was issued, the matter has become even more relevant as the majority of personal injury claims are now treated as small claims and the firms still handling them operate to a similar model as Bott & Co.

Writing in the Gazette after the Court of Appeal ruling, Bott & Co senior partner David Bott said his firm had provided an innovative, technology-based legal solution for hundreds of thousands of claimants. But this had effectively been used against the firm, as the appeal judges found the work done was largely mechanical and formulaic and therefore there was no equitable lien over unpaid fees.

He described the case as ‘Edmondson Part 2’, referring to the Supreme Court judgment in 2018 in Edmondson v Haven, where it was found the defendant insurer approached clients already represented by lawyers and deprived them of costs to which they were entitled.

 

This article is now closed for comment.