Bidzina Ivanishvili v Signature Litigation LLP
[2023] EWHC 2189 (SCCO)
Signature Litigation LLP v Bidzina Ivanishvili
1 August 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 901
Court of Appeal
A law firm billed a client for part of their fees under a special agreement. The rest of the fee depended on winning a case. A court ruled that because the bill wasn't for the full fee, it wasn't a final bill, meaning the client could still challenge it even though they had already paid. This highlights how old laws don't always fit modern ways of paying for legal services.
Key Facts
- •Signature Litigation LLP (appellant) appealed a Costs Judge's decision that 79 invoices totaling nearly £13 million were not interim statutory bills under s.70 of the Solicitors Act 1974.
- •The invoices were rendered to Bidzina Ivanishvili (respondent) between 2016 and 2022 for work done under a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA).
- •The invoices represented 65% of the standard fee, with the remaining 35%, plus uplift and success fees, contingent on achieving specific recovery amounts in ongoing litigation against Credit Suisse.
- •The respondent paid the invoices without challenge.
- •The appeal focused on whether the invoices, despite the contingent fees, were 'final and complete' enough to be considered interim statutory bills.
Legal Principles
A solicitor's bill of costs must be final and complete to qualify as an interim statutory bill under s.70 of the Solicitors Act 1974.
Davidsons v Jones-Fenleigh, Abedi v Penningtons, Bari v Rosen, Boodia v Slade
Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) create tension with the requirement of finality and completeness for interim statutory bills because the full remuneration isn't known until later.
Sprey v Rawlinson Butler LLP, Winros Partnership v Global Energy Horizons Corporation, Richard Slade v Erlam
The Solicitors Act 1974 has been criticized for its inadequacy in regulating solicitor-client relationships in modern civil litigation, particularly regarding interim billing and CFAs.
Menzies v Oakwood Solicitors Limited
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
The court found that the invoices, representing only a portion of the total fees under the CFA, were not final and complete. The contingent nature of the remaining fees meant the work covered by the invoices could be revisited in future billing, precluding them from being interim statutory bills.