Guest Supplies Intl Limited v Spector Constant & Williams Limited
[2024] EWHC 2450 (SCCO)
Sylvia Olukoya v Riverbrooke Solicitors Ltd
2 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2771 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
The solicitor and client settled their fee dispute through the Legal Ombudsman, agreeing on a final bill. The solicitor later tried to charge much more, but the judge ruled the original agreement was binding and the extra charges were invalid.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (Olukoya) sought assessment of a solicitor's bill from Defendant (Riverbrooke Solicitors) under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974.
- •A previous Informal Resolution (February 2020) via the Legal Ombudsman resulted in a final bill of £13,000 being paid by the Claimant.
- •Defendant subsequently issued a 'Revised Final Invoice' for £157,951 (later reduced to £106,169.94), prompting the assessment application.
- •The Legal Ombudsman reported potential misconduct by the Defendant to the SRA, influencing the Defendant's issuance of the revised invoice.
Legal Principles
Whether a binding contract exists depends on objectively assessed communications and conduct, not subjective intentions.
RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH & Co KG (UK Production) [2010] UKSC 14
A final solicitor's bill is binding and cannot be amended without client agreement or court permission; exceptions are for genuine mistake or error.
Bilkus v Stockler Brunton (a Firm) [2010] EWCA Civ 101; Sadd v Griffin [1928] 2 KB 510; Polak v Marchioness of Winchester [1956] 1 WLR 818
Promissory estoppel prevents enforcing strict contractual rights if a promise not to do so was made, relied upon, and caused detriment; inequitable conduct by the promisee can prevent its application.
Jones v Richard Slade & Co Ltd [2022] Costs LR 1191
The Legal Ombudsman's Scheme Rules and the Legal Services Act 2007 govern complaints against solicitors and potential misconduct referrals to the SRA.
Legal Services Act 2007, section 143; Legal Ombudsman’s Scheme Rules, rule 5.59
Outcomes
The Informal Resolution was a binding contract.
The parties' communications and actions demonstrated a clear, complete agreement. The Claimant provided consideration by terminating her complaint and foregoing other potential remedies.
The Defendant lacked permission to issue the 'Revised Final Invoice'.
The February 2020 invoice was a final, statutory bill. No mistake justified revision, and allowing it would contradict the Informal Resolution and public policy.
The Defendant's estoppel argument failed.
The Claimant's actions were not inequitable, and the Defendant's promise not to seek further costs was relied upon by the Claimant.
The 'Revised Final Invoice' is assessed at nil.
Based on the binding Informal Resolution and the lack of permission to revise the final bill.