Sears Tooth Agreements

Sandler v Sandler and Lloyd Platt & Co [2010] EWHC 1415; Family Law Journal December 2010/January 2011 p15

Sears Tooth v Payne Hicks Beach & others [1998] 1 FCR 231 held that, far from being contrary to public policy, an agreement between a solicitor and client comprising a deed of assignment of a sufficient amount of a lump sum payment to meet their outstanding legal fees, enabled the financially dependent spouse to have fair access to legal advice, and to pursue their claims against the more financially powerfully placed spouse. Sears Tooth made it clear that, firstly, the client had to be advised that they should seek separate independent legal advice on the deed and that its existence should be disclosed both to the court and the other party. The problem in Sandler was that the wife’s share of the net proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home required to achieve an equal division of assets was some £47,140 but various orders for costs in any event made against her totalled £39,250 with the remaining balance of £7,890 being insufficient to meet the amount for which Mrs. Sandler was indebted to her solicitors. Nevertheless Mr Sandler was entitled to set off against the wife’s share of the net sale proceeds the costs to which he was entitled under the orders. The Sears Tooth agreement did not take precedence over Mr Sandler’s right to set off the debts due to him.