Candey Limited v Stephen Finnan
[2023] EWHC 3261 (SCCO)
Litkraft Limited v Simon Cottrell & Ors.
3 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 465 (Comm)
High Court
A claims company (Litkraft) sued a law firm (Goldsmith Williams) for unpaid fees. They had a deal for higher fees on bigger cases, even though it wasn't written down. The judge said the deal was real and the law firm had to pay, even though they tried to say it was illegal because they didn't tell their clients. The judge also decided on a few other smaller issues around how the companies should pay for other things like translations.
Key Facts
- •Litkraft Limited (Claimant), a claims management company, introduced clients to Goldsmith Williams Solicitors (Defendants).
- •Initially, there was no written contract, but a 2013 contract was made to comply with LASPO's referral fee ban.
- •A dispute arose concerning fees for 'High Value Cases', leading to a statutory demand and ultimately a Settlement Agreement in 2016.
- •The Claimant sought unpaid fees totaling £569,446, including those for High Value Cases, translation services, and transferred cases.
- •Preliminary issues were identified relating to contract variation, a new contract, the Settlement Agreement's interpretation, estoppel, illegality, quantum meruit, limitation, VAT invoices, translation fees, and transferred cases.
Legal Principles
Referral Fee Ban
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), Section 56
Contractual Interpretation
Common Law
Estoppel by Convention
Common Law
Illegality
Common Law, Conduct of Authorised Person Rules 2013, SRA Handbook
Quantum Meruit
Common Law
Limitation of Actions
Statute (unspecified)
VAT Invoices
Common Law, Contract Law
Outcomes
The 2013 Contract was varied to include a 17.5% fee for High Value Cases.
The email exchanges between the parties constituted a clear offer and acceptance, despite the absence of a formal written contract. The court rejected the defendants' argument that there was no concluded agreement due to a conditionality regarding compliance which was absent in the key emails.
The Settlement Agreement did not need to be considered.
This became academic given the finding on the variation of the 2013 contract.
Estoppel did not need to be considered.
This was deemed unnecessary given the court's decision on the contract variation.
The contract for High Value Cases was not void for illegality.
The court rejected the defendants' illegality argument based on non-disclosure, finding that the Claimant met its disclosure obligations and that the defendants' breach of their own regulatory duties did not invalidate the agreement.
Quantum meruit was not considered.
This became unnecessary given the court's decision on the contract variation and illegality.
The defendants' liability to pay was not conditional on a VAT invoice.
There was no contractual term requiring a VAT invoice before payment.
Translation fees were governed by the course of dealings between the parties.
The 2013 contract was silent on translation fees and was not considered to supersede the previous course of dealings.
The defendants' obligation to account for translation fees was clarified.
The defendants had a duty to submit invoices to third parties unless they had good reason to believe the fees were not recoverable.
The defendants were liable for fees on transferred cases.
The court found that the defendants retained liability for fees accrued before the transfer, provided the claim was ultimately successful.