Protopapas Solicitors (a firm) v John Michaelides & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2929 (SCCO)
SZ Solicitors (a firm) & Ors v Jaswant Singh Bharj & Anor
6 August 2024
[2024] EWCC 5
County Court
A solicitor sued for unpaid legal bills. The judge decided how much the client owed, not using a specific law about reducing bills. The solicitor won, but the client had to pay extra for causing delays. The client also had to pay interest because they didn't try to settle sooner.
Key Facts
- •Claimants (SZ) sought payment for eight bills of costs, seven relating to matters separate from the main 3CL claim.
- •The main 3CL claim bill was initially for £180,000, but the court found a lower amount due.
- •The Defendants (Mr. Bharj) disputed the bills, arguing for significant reductions and alleging various improprieties.
- •The court conducted a common law assessment of the costs, as opposed to an assessment under the Solicitors Act 1974.
- •The issue of double recovery for costs was considered for some of the bills.
- •A £600 payment to Ms. Read needed to be credited against one of the bills.
- •The court considered the application of the 'one-fifth rule' from section 70(9) of the Solicitors Act 1974 but ultimately found it inapplicable.
Legal Principles
Costs assessment under common law, not under the Solicitors Act 1974.
Healys LLP v Partridge [2019] EWHC 2471 (Ch)
'One-fifth rule' in section 70(9) of the Solicitors Act 1974 applies only to assessments under the Act, not common law assessments.
Wilsons Solicitors LLP v Bentine and Stone Rowe Brewer v Just Costs Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 1168, Healys LLP v Partridge [2019] EWHC 2471 (Ch)
Court has wide discretion regarding costs orders, considering conduct of parties and success on parts of the case (CPR 44.2).
CPR 44.2(2)(a), (b), (4)
Solicitor acting for themselves can recover profit costs (Chorley principle).
London Scottish Benefits Society v Chorley [1884] 13 QBD 872
Indemnity costs: court resolves doubts in favour of receiving party regarding reasonableness of costs.
CPR 44.3(3)
Outcomes
Claimants entitled to costs, limited to issue and trial fees due to late costs budget filing.
Claimants succeeded, but their costs were restricted due to procedural failure.
'One-fifth rule' did not apply.
The assessment was a common law assessment, not under the Solicitors Act 1974.
Defendants to pay costs of adjournment (£20,550) on indemnity basis.
Adjournment caused significant additional work; Defendants' conduct contributed.
Defendants to pay costs of their applications (£770).
Agreed by the parties.
Claimants awarded interest on the bills at 3% over base rate.
Defendants' unjustified refusal to offer payment or settlement.
Amounts due on each of the 7 bills were determined individually, after considering evidence and arguments.
Based on evidence of work completed and lack of payment.