GOLDING & GOLDING

The parties to this proceeding were Golding & Golding, a firm of solicitors, and the respondent, who had engaged the firm to act for him in a number of matters. The dispute concerned the firm's entitlement to charge professional fees for work performed. The matter came before McNab J in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the solicitors had acted in breach of their duty to their client by failing to obtain a written agreement for their fees, and if so, what the consequences of that breach would be for their claim for remuneration. Specifically, the court had to determine if the absence of a written agreement rendered the solicitors' claim unenforceable or if it merely affected the quantum of their entitlement.

McNab J reasoned that while solicitors have a duty to ensure their clients understand the terms of engagement, including fee arrangements, the absence of a written agreement did not automatically disentitle them to payment for work properly performed. The court applied the principle that a solicitor is entitled to reasonable remuneration for services rendered, even in the absence of a formal written agreement, provided the work was undertaken at the client's request and to their satisfaction. However, the court also acknowledged that the onus would be on the solicitors to demonstrate the reasonableness of their charges in such circumstances.

The court ordered that the solicitors were entitled to recover reasonable fees for the work performed, but the quantum of those fees would be subject to assessment, taking into account the lack of a written agreement and the overall conduct of the parties.