Yan Deng & Anor v Meng Zhang & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2392 (KB)
John Riordan & Ors v Moon Beever Solicitors
20 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 659 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
The Claimants wanted to get out of a deal to pay £650,000 to challenge their solicitor's bill. The judge said they had no good reason, and they have to pay the solicitor's legal fees for trying.
Key Facts
- •Claimants (Riordan et al.) sought to set aside paragraphs of a consent order (17 October 2017) and a subsequent order (20 April 2022) related to a detailed assessment of a solicitor's bill.
- •The consent order required Claimants to pay £650,000 by 2 February 2018 to proceed with the assessment; failure to pay resulted in dismissal.
- •Claimants' professional negligence claim against the Defendants was issued but later struck out.
- •A stay on the detailed assessment was imposed and later extended, pending the outcome of the negligence claim appeal.
- •The appeal was dismissed, the stay lifted, and the Claimants failed to pay the £650,000.
- •Claimants argued Defendants' actions prevented them from raising the funds.
Legal Principles
Court's power to vary or revoke orders under CPR 3.1(7) generally requires a material change in circumstances or misstated facts.
CPR 3.1(7); Tibbles v SIG Plc [2012] 1 W.L.R. 2591
The court retains jurisdiction to intervene in the implementation of a consent order, even if made by consent; the weight given to the agreement depends on the circumstances, with procedural accommodations carrying less weight than substantive disputes.
[2018] EWHC 1452 (QB) para 28-30 (Foskett J)
Outcomes
Application to set aside the orders was dismissed.
No material change in circumstances since the orders were made. Defendants' actions in securing their fees were reasonable and foreseeable. Claimants failed to provide evidence supporting their claim of obstruction. The consent order was likely the best outcome Claimants could have reasonably expected.
Claimants ordered to pay Defendants' costs of the application.
Costs follow the event. A slight reduction was granted in costs given the work could have been delegated.