Guest Supplies Intl Limited v Spector Constant & Williams Limited
[2024] EWHC 2450 (SCCO)
Lansdowne Group Limited & Anor v Weightmans LLP
7 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1600 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A law firm billed clients without clearly stating the bills were final, making it hard for clients to challenge them. The judge ruled the firm's billing was wrong and ordered them to send proper bills.
Key Facts
- •Weightmans LLP (Defendant) acted for Lansdowne Group Limited and John Kelly (Claimants) in high-value litigation, ultimately unsuccessful.
- •Defendant issued 44 invoices, with Claimants paying approximately £2.24m. The last 6 invoices (£618,125.86 plus interest and costs) were unpaid, leading to Part 7 proceedings and a default judgment.
- •Claimants issued Part 8 proceedings seeking a stay, file disclosure, and invoice assessment under the Solicitors Act 1974.
- •The central issue is whether the Defendant's invoices are interim statute bills under the Solicitors Act 1974 or requests for payments on account.
- •Claimants argue the invoices are not statute bills, and the retainer doesn't permit interim statute bills.
- •Defendant argues the retainer contained an express right to issue interim statute bills.
Legal Principles
Burden of proof for delivery of a bill of costs lies with the solicitor. Ambiguities are resolved in the client's favour.
Romer v Haslam [1893] 2 QB 296
Interim statute bills are permissible only with express agreement, a natural break in proceedings, or by acquiescence. Acquiescence requires clear and unequivocal conduct.
Boodia (1) & Boodia (2) v Richard Slade [2023] EWHC 2963 (KB)
Hardship to a client from interim bills during ongoing litigation is a relevant factor in determining acquiescence.
Harrod’s (Buenos Aires) Ltd v Another [2014] 6 Costs LR 975; Masters v Charles Fussell and Co (unreported)
There is no statutory or regulatory obligation to advise a client of their rights under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 upon issuing interim statute bills.
Slade v Erlam [2022] EWHC 325; Ivanishvili v Signature Litigation Limited [2023] EWHC 2189 (SCCO)
For a bill to be a statute bill, it must be complete and final for the work it covers; no subsequent adjustment is allowed.
Abedi v Penningtons [2000] EWCA Civ 85; Bari v Rosen [2012] 5 Costs LR 851; Richard Slade v Boodia [2018] 5 Costs LR 1185; Ivanishvili v Signature Litigation Limited [2023] EWHC 2189
Certainty is needed in bills; they should clearly state charges, disbursements, payments, outstanding sums, and demands.
Karatysz v SGI Legal LLP [2022] EWCA Civ 1388
A Chamberlain bill may arise where a series of bills, not necessarily statute bills, culminates in a final bill.
Bari v Rosen [2012] EWHC 1782(QB)
Section 69(2E) of the Solicitors Act 1974 creates a presumption that a bill is bona fide compliant, unless proven otherwise.
Ivanishvili v Signature Litigation Limited [2023] EWHC 2189 (SCCO)
Outcomes
The retainer does not grant an express right to raise interim statute bills.
The retainer's language is ambiguous, and the court resolves ambiguity in favor of the lay client. The advice given to the Claimants on how to challenge bills risked them losing their statutory rights.
The invoices delivered were not interim statute bills.
The invoices did not clearly state they were interim statute bills, contained overlapping entries, and the advice provided for challenging the bills undermined statutory protection. Mere payment of invoices is not conclusive of an agreement to issue interim statute bills.
A Chamberlain bill was not created.
The chain of bills was broken by multiple instances of overlapping entries, rendering the bills non-compliant.
An order will be made for the delivery of a compliant bill under CPR 46.10.
The court found that the defendant did not provide compliant interim statute bills, necessitating the delivery of a proper bill of costs.