Barnes (Appellant) v Broadfield Law UK LLP (formerly BDB Pitmans LLP) (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0092

Parties

Appellant(s)

Emily Barnes

Respondent(s)

Broadfield Law UK LLP

Issue

Is a written agreement between a solicitor and a client that specifies the solicitor’s hourly rate a Contentious Business Agreement (“CBA”) for the purposes of section 59 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (“the 1974 Act”)?

Facts

In 2018, Ms Barnes engaged Broadfield Law UK LLP (then known as Bircham Dyson Bell LLP (“BDB”)), to act for her in relation to her divorce. The contract of retainer was set out by one of the partners in the firm, a Mr Thompson, in a letter sent Ms Barnes a letter dated 14 August 2018 which enclosed BDB’s “Information for Clients and Terms of Business” and “Additional Information for Client’s and Additional Terms of Business Regarding Litigation and Dispute Resolution”. BDB carried out work for Ms Barnes pursuant to that contract. Four statutory bills were delivered by BDB to Ms Barnes between 2 October 2018 and 30 January 2019, totalling £139,198.40. Ms Barnes paid a total of £39,000 to BDB, leaving an outstanding amount, exclusive of interest, of £99,998.40. BDB brought a claim in the County Court against Ms Barnes for the balance of its fees. It limited the sum claimed to £75,000 plus accrued interest of £24,999. Ms Barnes served a Defence in which she raised, as a preliminary objection, the contention that the agreement was a CBA and therefore BDB was required by section 61(1) of the 1974 Act to apply to the court to enforce the agreement and “determine every question as to its validity or effect.” Ms Barnes then made an application to strike out the claim on the grounds that, because the retainer was a CBA, it was an abuse of process to use CPR Part 7 proceedings to seek payment of the sums said to be due under it. Instead, BDB should have applied to the court under section 61(1) to enforce the agreement. BDB denied that the retainer was a CBA. Tribunal Judge Robin Somerville held that the agreement was not a CBA, on the basis that it was insufficiently clear and certain. His Honour Judge Davies dismissed Ms Barnes’ appeal against that decision. Ms Barnes then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. Ms Barnes now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

6 July 2026

Case origin

PTA

Permission to Appeal

Justices

Lord Briggs

Lord Burrows

Lord Stephens

Permission to Appeal decision date

28 September 2026

Permission to Appeal decision

Refused

The application does not raise an arguable point of law.

Back to top