Bott & Co Solicitors, which specialises in flight delay compensation cases, brought proceedings against Ryanair following a 2016 change in the airline’s policy, which meant that it would no longer pay compensation into Bott’s client account but instead pay compensation directly to the law firm’s clients.

As a result of the change in policy, Bott could no longer deduct its fees from the compensation paid into its client account and instead had to pursue its clients for payment.

Bott brought proceedings against Ryanair claiming an equitable lien over the compensation in respect of its costs, and an injunction restraining Ryanair from paying compensation directly to customers when Ryanair is on notice that Bott has been retained by them. An equitable lien would allow Bott to pursue Ryanair for fees unpaid by its clients.

In the High Court, the judge held that he was bound by previous authority to find that a solicitor’s equitable lien arose only once proceedings had actually been started. As a result, there could be no equitable lien in circumstances where compensation is paid out by Ryanair without passengers having commenced legal proceedings.

Bott appealed. By the time the Court of Appeal heard its appeal, the Supreme Court had given judgment in Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Co Ltd [2018] UKSC 21, which decided that a solicitor’s equitable lien can arise where no proceedings have been started.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Bott’s appeal on the basis that unless and until Ryanair disputes a claim for compensation, Bott is not providing a litigation service in the promotion of access to justice. Bott appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court today allowed Bott’s appeal by a 3-2 majority. The majority judges, Lord Burrows, Lady Arden and Lord Briggs, gave three separate judgments but all agreed with the test for an equitable lien adopted by Lord Burrows. Lord Leggatt and Lady Rose jointly dissented.

Lord Burrows pointed out that the ruling in Gavin Edmondson, handed down by Lord Briggs, had recognised “that the motivation for recognising a solicitor’s equitable lien was promoting access to justice”.

“The interpretation of Gavin Edmondson that I am adopting can readily be seen to promote access to justice in the sense being talked about by Lord Briggs,” Lord Burrows said.

“The vindication of a client’s legal rights, through the making of claims, is more likely to be effective if solicitors know that they have the security of a lien to recover their costs.”