The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that an oral retainer existed between the appellant Mauro and the respondent law firm.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the heavy onus on the solicitor to establish an oral retainer was met.
The Court also rejected the argument that an oral retainer is void unless in writing under the Solicitors Act, noting that there was no dispute as to the amount of compensation.
