On Friday 19 December, Marcus Smith J handed down judgment in Winros Partnership v Global Energy Horizons Corporation [2025] EWHC 3362 (Ch).
Winros (then known as Rosenblatt Solicitors) had acted for GEHC in a dispute with a former associate, Robert Gray, on a contingent fee basis. Following the breakdown of their relationship, Winros terminated the retainer before any ‘win’ occurred under the conditional fee agreement. Such termination was at common law, rather than under Winros’ contractual termination powers in clause 14 of the conditional fee agreement.
Winros delivered a bill of costs, seeking payment on a ‘quantum meruit’ basis. GEHC sought assessment of that bill under s.70 Solicitors Act 1974, and in the Senior Courts Costs Office, Gordon-Saker SCJ held that no common law restitutionary claim was possible given the existence of a contractual power to terminate for cause which Winros deliberately chose not to exercise.
On appeal, Marcus Smith J upheld the decision of Gordon-Saker SCJ. After considering the leading authorities on restitutionary claims for ‘failure of basis’, he concluded at [52] and [55] that “there is no room for a claim in unjust enrichment” because the contract “already articulated what is to happen in this kind of case”. Winros’ bill was to be assessed at nil.
The judge further held, obiter dicta, that applying the decision of Johnson J in Jones v Richard Slade [2022] EWHC 1968 (QB), that the question of whether a solicitor is entitled to a quantum meruit is best determined in an ordinary Part 7 claim, rather than in s.70 proceedings (at [63]).
Matthew Hoyle appeared for GEHC, led by Benjamin Williams KC of 4 New Square and instructed by Eversheds Sutherland.