Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Daniels v. Richardson, 1932

[lawyer's fees]

Daniels v. Richardson

Court of Appeal, Palestine
Source: The Palestine Bulletin, 17 January 1932



   An interesting question touching the relations between an advocate and his client has again been raised by the decision recently given by the Court of Appeal.  We reported last June the case between Mr. Richardson, the well known lawyer of Jaffa, and Mr. Daniels of London.  The latter claimed that certain of his lawyer's charges were excessive and that in some cases the advocate had acted beyond his instructions.

   The Chief Justice recently gave the following judgment in the Appeal in winch Mr. Daniels was the appellant and Mr. Richardson the respondent.


   At the outset we wish to record our dissent from the passage in the judgment of the district Court in which it is stated that in the opinion of the Court the fee for a normal foreclosure action is the sum of £P. 60.  In our opinion one-fourth of that sum is more properly described as the customary fee.

   As regards the second mortgage we hold that the letters of 3/9/26 and 26/9/236, followed as they were by the transfer by appellant's order to the respondent's account of £P. 60 by the bank, constitute a completed agreement between the parties.

   The respondent was dealing with a client abroad who asked what would be the charge for the whole case.  Although the respondent informed applicant in his letter of 27/6/26 that there is not necessity for an actual case, he at no time informed the appellant that litigation in the High Court and in the District Court was involved and did not inform him that as a consequence a higher fee would be required.

   As regards the first mortgage there was no agreement between the parties and the costs thereof must be taxed.

   As regards the bidding for four and consequently purchasing three of the properties this was clearly not contemplated in the agreement for payment of £P. 60 and the costs here must also be taxed.

Appellant Entitled To Interest.

   As regards interest the appellant is entitled to any interest which was actually received by the respondent while the sum of £P. 1100 was laying to the credit of respondent's account.

   On the question of carfare we do not consider that the appellant has made out his case.  As to the private enquiry agent, in the absence of authority from the client to go to this additional and unusual expense we hold that the appellant has made out his case.

   As to costs in the District Court the tender by defendant to plaintiff was not unconditional, the District Court was wrong in not ordering the defendant to pay costs of the plaintiff.

   This case must therefore be remitted to the District Court to proceed as laid down in the judgment and to give judgment accordingly.

   The application to have the costs of this appeal and £P. 3 advocator's fees and expenses.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School