Key Facts
- •Claimants' solicitors (Parkerwall) submitted eight bills of costs for similar solar panel misselling claims.
- •Defendants raised concerns about discrepancies in counsel's fees, expert's fees, and profit costs, including identical entries across multiple bills.
- •Parkerwall admitted that virtually all time claimed was estimated, not recorded, and not marked as such in the bills.
- •The Senior Costs Judge assessed one bill, finding significant problems and disallowing a large portion.
- •Parkerwall's sole director, Ms Wall, explained their lack of experience in this type of claim and their reliance on a costs draftsman.
- •Amended bills were submitted but still contained estimated time, with Ms Wall certifying them after limited review.
- •The Judge found Parkerwall's conduct to be unreasonable and improper under CPR 44.11.
Legal Principles
Court's power to disallow costs or order cost payments for unreasonable or improper conduct.
CPR 44.11
Solicitor's signature on a bill of costs is a certification of accuracy and carries significant weight.
Bailey v IBC Vehicles Ltd [1998] 3 All ER 570
Solicitor is responsible for the conduct of anyone to whom they subcontract work.
Gempride Ltd v Bamrah [2018] EWCA Civ 1367
Estimated time in bills is viewed with circumspection and requires clear justification.
Brush v Bower Cotton & Bower [1993] 4 All ER 741
Outcomes
40% of the Claimants' costs disallowed under CPR 44.11(2)(a).
Claimants' legal representatives claimed costs for work not done and misled the Court by not disclosing the extensive estimation of time.
Claimants' solicitors to pay 75% of the Defendants' costs of the detailed assessment proceedings on the indemnity basis under CPR 44.11(2)(b).
The solicitors' unreasonable and improper conduct necessitated a lengthy and expensive detailed assessment.