Lisa Pickering v Thomas Mansfield Solicitors Limited
[2024] EWHC 1107 (SCCO)
Guiliano Davide Stella v Hodge Jones & Allan LLP
2 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1704 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A client challenged their solicitor's bills. The court decided the solicitor's smaller bills weren't final bills, so the client could still challenge them all. The client also successfully argued for a full review of the bills because of problems with the cost estimates and other issues. The court ordered a full review of all the bills.
Key Facts
- •Claimant retained Defendant solicitor in September 2017 for a property dispute.
- •Defendant issued 34 invoices totaling £225,697.60, of which £198,635 was paid.
- •Claimant initiated a Part 8 claim for detailed assessment of 8 invoices (£85,140.70).
- •Claimant subsequently applied for assessment of the remaining 26 invoices (£140,492.20).
- •Dispute centered on whether the invoices were interim statute bills or interim payments on account.
- •Claimant argued for 'special circumstances' under s.70(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974 to justify a detailed assessment.
Legal Principles
Burden of proving interim statute bills rests on the receiving party; retainer should be construed as a whole; ambiguity resolved against the solicitor.
Vlamaki v. Sookias and Sookias [2015] 6 Costs LO 827; Friston on Costs (4th Ed.) at 27.49
Solicitor must make it plain to the client that an interim bill is intended to be a complete bill; client's acquiescence may imply agreement.
Davidsons v. Jones-Fenleigh [1980] WL 149540
Payment without demur does not imply agreement to interim statute bills if the retainer doesn't provide for them.
Ivanishvili v. Signature Litigation LLP [2023] EWHC 2189 (SCCO)
Special circumstances for detailed assessment under s.70(4) SA 1974 are a value judgment, not necessarily exceptional circumstances; consider whether fees or circumstances 'call for an explanation'.
Falmouth House Freehold Co. Ltd. v. Morgan Walker LLP [2010] EWHC 3092 (CH); Masters v. Charles Fussell & Co. LLP [2021] EWHC B1 (Costs); Raydens Ltd v. Cole [2021] 7 WLUK 539
Outcomes
Claimant's application to include the 26 additional invoices was allowed.
The court found the application, while unorthodox, was permissible given the circumstances and the Defendant's awareness of the Claimant's intent.
The invoices were deemed interim bills on account, not interim statute bills.
The retainer expressly provided for interim payments on account before a final bill; ambiguity was resolved in favour of the Claimant; the Defendant's evidence was insufficient to establish implied agreement to interim statute bills; payment did not imply agreement given the retainer's terms.
'Special circumstances' under s.70(4) SA 1974 were found to exist.
The 'Estimates Issue' and 's.74(3) SA 1974 Issue' were sufficient to distinguish this case from the ordinary; the issues require explanation and scrutiny.
A detailed assessment of all 34 invoices was ordered without additional terms.
The court considered the 'special circumstances' and balanced the Defendant's claims of prejudice against the Claimant's right to a fair assessment. The significant payments already made mitigated the Defendant's concerns regarding financial prejudice.