- Implied retainers and reflective loss considered (Naibu Gobal v Daniel Stewart)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This judgment covers a number of matters of interest to litigators and legal practitioners more generally. It reiterates the principles whereby an implied retainer can be found between a solicitor and a client, despite no letter of engagement having been signed. The case also follows and applies the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial, and thus contains an example of the court applying the rules against claiming reflective loss. Lastly, the judgment considers sections 9 and 82 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), and the issue of when a party is claiming through or under another party to the arbitration and when an arbitration can be stayed on this basis. Written by Angharad Parry, barrister, at Twenty Essex.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial