Mr Alastair Dobbie v Paula Felton ta Feltons Solicitors: [2025] EAT 71

EAT holds that a fee-share consultant solicitor was not entitled to claim 40% of fees billed, for work done by other consultants.

Susan Chan acted for Paula Felton, trading as Feltons, the successful Respondent in this EAT appeal. This long-running case has spanned over 9 years and been to the Employment Appeal Tribunal twice. Ms Felton is a sole practice solicitor who engaged fee-sharing consultants from time to time. One of them is the Appellant Alastair Dobbie, who qualified through Feltons. However, within two years Ms Felton had terminated his consultancy due to her concerns over his competence; his demand that she double his fees; and because he had kept 100% of the fees received from the opposing party in a dispute where he had acted for his parents, despite having represented to the opponent that he was acting under a genuine indemnity. Crucially, his termination was not because he had made a whistleblowing disclosure.

The earlier ET decision is here.

This latest chapter concerned Mr Dobbie’s claim for unpaid wages. His consultancy contract with Feltons provided that he was entitled to 40% of fees billed and paid by the client for work invoiced by him; the other 60% went to the practice. The contract provided that any variation had to be by written agreement signed by both parties. Mr Dobbie’s work for a particular client (Client A) was capped at 50 hours per month, with his 40% share amounting to £5,000 for him personally each month. Mr Dobbie’s initial contention was that Ms Felton had orally agreed to double his fees to £10,000, which she denied. 

When Mr Dobbie’s account was rejected by the employment tribunal, he tried another tack: he argued that under his contract with Feltons, he was entitled to 40% of all fees received from Client A, even though other consultants had been working on the case. The tribunal rejected his contention, finding that Ms Felton and Mr Dobbie had made a separate oral agreement that Mr Dobbie should receive £5,000 per month on Client A’s case, but alternatively, even if the tribunal was wrong that there had been a ‘separate oral agreement’, under his consultancy contract Mr Dobbie was only entitled to 40% of the fees for work he had personally done, not 40% for work done by other fee earners. Mr Dobbie appealed to the EAT against this finding, arguing that he was entitled to 40% of all fees paid by client A to the firm.

Mr Ford KC pointed out the “ludicrous” and “extraordinary” consequences that would follow if Mr Dobbie’s construction of the contract was correct. The judge posed a hypothetical scenario where 10 consultants each working under this contract all did minimal work for a client, with the client’s total bill being £100,000: would the 10 consultants each be entitled to 40% of £100,000? Mr Dobbie answered in the affirmative, with the outcome that Feltons would be obliged to pay its consultants £400,000, some four times the fees received from the client. 

Mr Michael Ford KC did not agree with Mr Dobbie’s interpretation. The Judge considered that because of the ‘no oral variation’ clause in the consultancy contract, following MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising [2019] AC 119 9, any ‘separate oral agreement’ on Client A’s case would not have been effective, but in any event, that finding was immaterial to the outcome, because the tribunal judge had gone on to find that if she were wrong about the separate agreement, on established principles of contractual interpretation, Mr Dobbie was only entitled to 40% of fees received for work he had done, not 40% of all fees paid by the client which would include the payment for other fee-earners' work. 

Comment: It might be thought that it was self-evident that consultants working under the common fee-sharing model, would only be entitled to the specified fee-share for work done by that consultant. But the EAT had to go back to first principles of contractual interpretation to ultimately conclude that the Appellant was only entitled to the 40% proportion of fees for work he had done: not also 40% of fees paid by that client for other 
consultants’ work. It should also be noted that if there is a ‘no oral variation’ clause in such contract, any variation to the fee-share or other important terms, will only be valid if done in accordance with the express method set out in the contract (usually in writing, signed by all parties).

Mr Alastair Dobbie v Paula Felton ta Feltons Solicitors: [2025] EAT 71 judgment.

30th May 2025

Susan Chan

Call 1994