Peter Ian Brealey v Shepherd & Co Solicitors
[2024] EWCA Civ 303
Daniel Kenig v Thomson Snell & Passmore LLP
1 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 181 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A beneficiary sued solicitors for overcharging on an estate. Even though the executor didn't help, and the solicitors claimed they couldn't share all the information, a judge ordered a review of the bills because they were way too high compared to the initial estimate. The judge ruled that this situation was different from a previous court case that limited such reviews.
Key Facts
- •Claimant is a beneficiary of a will, seeking assessment of solicitor's bills (Defendant) delivered to the executor.
- •Solicitors' original estimate was £10,000-£15,000; final bill was £54,410.99.
- •Estate's gross value was £2,881,000.
- •Claimant applied for assessment 8 months after the last invoice.
- •Claimant's application was under Section 71(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974 as a 'person interested' in the estate.
- •Executor did not participate in the proceedings.
- •Defendant argued privilege prevented full assessment.
Legal Principles
Assessment of solicitor's bills under the Solicitors Act 1974.
Solicitors Act 1974, sections 70 and 71.
Definition of 'statute bill' and requirements for sufficient information.
Ralph Hume Garry v Gwillim [2002] EWCA Civ 1500; Haskell Elias v Wallace LLP [2022] EWHC 2574.
'Special circumstances' for assessment after 12 months or after payment.
Solicitors Act 1974, section 70(3); Wilsons Solicitors LLP v Serena Bentine [2015] EWCA Civ 1168; Falmouth House Freehold Co Ltd v Morgan Walker LLP [2010] EWHC 3092 (Ch); Kundrath v Harry Kwatia & Gooding [2005] 2 Costs LR 279.
Definition of 'payment' of a bill.
Menzies v Oakwood [2022] EWHC 3199 (KB); Re Foss, Bilborough & Co [1912] 2 Ch 161; Re Thompson [1894] 1 QB 462.
Beneficiary's right to assessment despite executor's inaction.
McIlwraith v McIlwraith [2004] 4 Costs L.R. 533.
Presumptions regarding reasonableness of costs in solicitor-client assessments (CPR 46.9).
CPR 46.9; McDougall v Boote Edgar Esterkin [2001] 1 Costs L.R. 118; Herbert v HH Law Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 527; Belsner v Cam Legal Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1387; ST v ZY [2022] EWHC.
Limitations on third-party assessments under Section 71 (Tim Martin).
Tim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump LLP [2011] EWCA Civ 1574; Brealey v Shepherd [2022] EWHC 3229 (KB); Chopping v Cowan (unreported, 17 April 2013).
Balancing exercise in exercising discretion regarding assessment.
Patel v Mowlam [2020] EWHC 1079 (QB).
Outcomes
Assessment of all bills ordered.
Special circumstances existed due to the substantial discrepancy between the estimate and the final bill (£10,000-£15,000 estimated vs. £54,410.99 billed), lack of sufficient explanation for the discrepancy, and the relatively straightforward nature of the estate administration. The court found that the limitations in *Tim Martin* did not apply to this case under section 71(3), and that even if they did, the claimant could still receive meaningful relief. The court also considered and rejected arguments related to privilege and delay.