Rhett St James v Wilkin Chapman LLP
[2024] EWHC 1716 (KB)
TRX v Southampton Football Club
25 November 2022
[2022] EWHC 3392 (KB)
High Court
A man won a lawsuit for abuse but fought with the other side over legal bills. The judge ruled he owed some bills but didn't have to pay all the other side's legal fees for arguing over the bills, even though they were reduced significantly. The higher court mostly agreed with this decision, saying that judges get to make these decisions based on many factors.
Key Facts
- •TRX (Claimant) appealed Costs Judge Brown's decisions on costs assessment following a settlement in his claim against Southampton Football Club (Defendant).
- •The claim was for sexual and emotional abuse suffered by TRX as a youth player.
- •TRX instructed three different solicitor firms: BL Claims, Hudgell Solicitors, and Bolt Burdon Kemp (BBK).
- •A dispute arose concerning the validity and effective date of the Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) between TRX and BBK.
- •The costs assessment involved disputes over hourly rates, fee earners, recoverability of certain costs, and the costs of the assessment itself.
- •The Defendant made a Part 36 offer which was accepted by the Claimant.
- •Costs Judge Brown ruled that there was no valid retainer between TRX and BBK until 17 October 2019, excluding earlier costs; that the CFA wasn't effective until 17 October 2019; and made no order as to costs of the detailed assessment.
Legal Principles
Contractual interpretation requires ascertaining the objective meaning of the language used, considering the documentary, factual, and commercial context.
Lukoil Asia Pacific Pte Limited v Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd
In solicitor-client relationships, a presumption arises that the client is liable to pay the solicitor's costs unless the paying party proves no circumstances exist where the solicitor could seek payment.
Adams v London Improved Motor Coach Builders; Meretz Investments NV & Anor v ACP Ltd
CPR 47.20 governs costs of detailed assessment, with a presumption that the receiving party recovers costs unless the court makes a different order, considering factors including conduct of parties, bill reduction, and reasonableness of claims/disputes.
CPR 47.20
In costs assessments, Part 36 offers are highly significant, but not the sole determinant of costs orders. Other factors under CPR 47.20(3) must be considered.
Fox v Foundation Piling Ltd; Global Energy Horizons Corporation v Gray; Mullaraj v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Milbrooke Construction Limited v Jones
Outcomes
The appeal on the first ground (no valid retainer before 17 October 2019) was allowed.
The court found that a general private retainer existed between TRX and BBK from 21 June 2019, despite inconsistencies in the 27 June letter mentioning a no-win, no-fee agreement. The presumption of client liability for costs was not rebutted.
The court did not need to decide the second ground (CFA effective date).
The hourly rates and material terms were the same under both the retainer and the CFA, rendering the precise effective date immaterial.
The appeal on the third ground (no order as to costs of the detailed assessment) was dismissed.
While a Part 36 offer is a key factor, CPR 47.20 allows consideration of all circumstances. The substantial bill reduction (65%), and other factors, justified the judge's discretion to make no order. The court declined to provide detailed guidance on applying CPR 47.20 beyond the rule's own terms.