Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Steve Hedley |
| Date: |
Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:30:50 |
| Re: |
Barnet v Anandh |
James Watthey wrote:
Andrew's example as he explains it
would also be a breach of the solicitor's conduct rules and, by the
sound of it, could involve the firm rendering fraudulent bills; a claim
in UE would therefore be the least of the responsible Partner's worries!
Can anyone think of a logical reason why the client, who engaged, bargained
for and was charged for the services of a solicitor but given the services
of a tea-boy, should not get his money back subject to counter-restitution?
One logical reason might be if the client also
wanted damages for breach of contract, as did the client in Adrian
Alan v Fuglers. Surely there is a difficulty (which I can't see
answered anywhere in the judgment) in allowing the client to recover the
money he himself paid, while holding the solicitors to it by an action
for damages.
Steve Hedley
Faculty of Law, University College, Cork
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
