Key Facts
- •224 claimants brought proceedings against Slater & Gordon UK Limited under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974.
- •Proceedings were initially stayed pending Court of Appeal decisions and prior SCCO decisions in similar cases (Edwards).
- •The claims involve challenges to profit costs and success fees, and a central dispute regarding the ATE insurance policy and potential undisclosed commissions.
- •The case considers the appropriate procedural approach to handling the intertwined issues of Solicitors Act assessment and potential breaches of fiduciary duty related to the ATE policy.
Legal Principles
Solicitors Act 1974, section 70: Governs assessment of solicitors' bills.
Solicitors Act 1974
PD46, paragraph 6.19: Outlines the typical chronology of a Solicitors Act assessment, including the determination of the cash account.
Practice Direction 46
Herbert v HH Law [2019] EWCA Civ 527: The Court of Appeal ruled that the amount of an ATE insurance premium is generally outside the scope of a Solicitors Act assessment.
Herbert v HH Law [2019] EWCA Civ 527
Edwards & Others v Slater & Gordon [2022] EWHC 1091 (QB): This case involved similar issues and informed the current judgment's approach.
Edwards & Others v Slater & Gordon [2022] EWHC 1091 (QB)
Outcomes
The court rejected a complete replication of the Edwards procedure, opting for a phased approach.
The Edwards approach led to protracted litigation due to evolving arguments. A phased approach allows for a more efficient resolution of the Solicitors Act assessment issues first, followed by consideration of the ATE policy dispute.
The standard Solicitors Act assessment procedure (breakdown, points of dispute, replies) will be followed initially for the profit cost and success fee challenges.
This focuses on the core issues within the scope of the Solicitors Act assessment before addressing the more complex and potentially tangential ATE policy dispute.
The defendant will provide cash accounts to provide figures for claimants to develop a case regarding the ATE policy.
This allows claimants to formulate their arguments without prejudging whether the ATE policy dispute is better resolved in the SCCO or Chancery Division.
The court will determine whether a transfer to the Chancery Division is appropriate after reviewing the scope of the issues raised in the assessment and subsequent pleadings.
This approach prevents premature transfer and allows for a more informed decision based on the developed arguments.