Assaubayev & Ors v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE AIKENS
- LADY JUSTICE BLACK
- LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A prominent Kazakhstani family and their company sought to challenge the fees and retainer agreements with Michael Wilson & Partners Limited (MWP), claiming MWP acted unlawfully as it was not a recognized legal body. The Appellants argued that MWP’s actions breached the Solicitors Act 1974 and sought a court’s supervisory intervention. The claims were stayed to allow arbitration as per the retainer agreement's clause, with the court holding that arbitration could decide on the issues of legality and fees recovery under ordinary jurisdiction.
Judgment
Mr Justice Walker:
A. Introduction and overview 1 A1. Introduction 1 A1.1 Refusal of application to stay a claim for statutory relief 1 A1.2 Staying proceedings in favour of arbitration 4 A1.3 Statutory and other relief against a solicitor 7 A1.4 Why the master refused a stay: in a nutshell 9 A1.5 Availability of Part III relief: solicitors & “recognised bodies” 11 A1.6 The Part III jurisdiction question 14 A2. Overview 16 A2.1 The claimants and the defendant 16 A2.2 The July retainer Costs Office claim 18 A2.3 The LCIA arbitration begun prior to the Costs Office claim 20 A2.4. Abbreviations, short forms, and “arbitration agreement” 22 A2.5. The Costs Office claim: issue, allocation & service out 24 A2.6 Acknowledgement of service & issue of initial stay application 26 A2.7. Credit Altyn ceases any active part in the Costs Office claim 27 A2.8 Hearing and determination of the initial stay application 28 A2.9 The 2013 amendments and other subsequent developments 29 A2.10 The appeal against the September order 35 A2.11 Written submissions after the hearing 44 A2.12 A fundamental point 46 A2.13 Conclusions on the appeal 50 B. The family, associated entities, MWP & key events 56 B1. The Jenington action: freezing orders against the family 56 B2. The family, GLH, Hawkinson, and Credit Altyn 57 B2.1. The Vos judgment and MWP’s allegations 59 B2.2. More about the claimants in the Costs Office claim and GLH 63 B3. MWP and Mr Wilson 63 B4. More about the Jenington action in June 2010 66 B5. The July retainer 69 B6. The August retainer, & Aidar’s acknowledgment of service 75 B7. MWP and the High Court: autumn 2010 & spring 2011 81 B8. Baurzhan’s acknowledgment of service 82 B9. MWP and the High Court: autumn 2010 to spring 2011 86 B10. Settlement of the Jenington action 87 B11. Invoices, termination and change of solicitors 88 B12. The arbitration proceedings 92 B13. The August retainer and Terra Raf invoices 99 C. The master’s reasons for the September order 102 C1. Stay refused so that court’s jurisdiction can be invoked 102 C2. An assumption that Part III relief was not arbitrable 106 C3. Terminology 108 C4. Unstructured arguments and failure to co-operate 110 D. Regulation of those conducting litigation 113 D1. Aspects of the regulation of conduct of litigation 113 D2. Statutes and codes regulating legal representatives 114 D2.1 The 1974 Act 114 D2.2 The Administration of Justice Act 1985 115 D2.3 The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 116 D2.4 The Le