Macura v Sarasevic (No 2)

The case of Macura v Sarasevic (No 2) involved a law firm, acting on behalf of the plaintiff, applying for declaratory relief and an equitable lien over a settlement sum that had been paid into court. The application was made after the substantive issue in the proceedings had been determined, and the law firm's legal fees remained unpaid. The law firm argued that it had a right to claim an equitable lien over the settlement sum due to its instrumental role in obtaining the settlement. The court was required to determine whether the law firm had standing to make such an application and whether an equitable lien had arisen in the present case.

The court examined the nature of the law firm's involvement in the proceedings and the strength of the causal link between its efforts and the settlement result. It was established that the law firm had played a significant role in achieving the settlement, and the court found that there was a sufficient causal link between the law firm's efforts and the settlement result. Consequently, the court held that the law firm had standing to apply for an equitable lien and that such a lien had indeed arisen in the present case. The law firm was therefore granted the equitable lien over the settlement sum to the extent of its unpaid legal fees.

The court's decision in Macura v Sarasevic (No 2) highlights the importance of the causal link between a law firm's efforts and the settlement result in determining whether an equitable lien may be claimed over a settlement sum. In this case, the court found that the law firm had a sufficient causal link and therefore granted the equitable lien as sought. This decision provides guidance for law firms seeking to establish an equitable lien over settlement sums in similar circumstances.