Key Facts
- •Claimant sought assessment of a solicitor's invoice under s 70 Solicitors Act 1974.
- •Dispute centered on the base profit costs, success fee, and an ATE insurance premium.
- •Proceedings transferred to the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO).
- •Claimant served a Part 18 request seeking information about the ATE insurance policy, including insurer identity, intermediaries, premium payments, and commissions.
- •Defendant refused to provide the requested information, arguing irrelevance to s 70 proceedings.
- •The claimant argued that the information was needed to fairly assess the cash account and properly challenge the ATE premium.
- •The court considered the impact of the Court of Appeal decision in Herbert v HH Law [2019] EWCA Civ 527 which prohibits challenging the ATE premium amount through s 70 proceedings.
- •The Raubenheimer v Slater & Gordon UK Limited case and its appeal before Ritchie J were referenced, concerning similar Part 18 requests relating to potential secret commissions from ATE insurers.
Legal Principles
Challenge to ATE premium amount cannot be made through s 70 proceedings.
Herbert v HH Law [2019] EWCA Civ 527
Part 18 requests must clarify matters in dispute or provide additional information related to such matters.
CPR 18.1
For pre-action disclosure, there must be evidence of an arguable case against the party from whom information is requested.
Case law analogy to pre-action disclosure
He who asserts must prove; suspicions alone are insufficient to justify a Part 18 request.
Judge's own reasoning
The overriding objective requires dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost.
CPR overriding objective
Outcomes
Claimant's application for an order compelling the defendant to answer the Part 18 request was dismissed.
The claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their suspicions of secret commissions or to demonstrate that the requested information was necessary to resolve a matter in dispute within the s 70 proceedings. The court found the request to be a fishing expedition in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing.
Costs were ordered to be in the case (not just the application).
Both parties acted reasonably given the lack of formal communication from the court regarding an earlier adjourned hearing. The claimant's conduct was not more blameworthy than the defendant's in causing the defendant's abated brief fee.