Clare Griffin v Kleyman & Co Solicitors Ltd
[2024] EWHC 1151 (SCCO)
Yvia Pulford v Hughes Fowler Carruthers Limited
7 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1429 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A client sued her lawyers over high divorce fees, claiming they misled her about costs. The judge didn't believe the client's story and ruled that she owed the full amount because she signed a contract agreeing to pay, and the lawyers did nothing wrong.
Key Facts
- •Detailed assessment of bills totaling £300,569.04 for divorce proceedings between November 2018 and November 2020.
- •Claimant initially consulted the Defendant firm in March 2012, with intermittent communication until October 2013.
- •Proceedings initiated on November 5, 2018, with retainer terminated in November 2020.
- •Claimant disputed the costs, alleging an initial estimate of £80,000 compared to the actual incurred costs.
- •Claimant argued lack of informed consent due to alleged misinformation regarding cost responsibility and payment by the husband.
- •Dispute regarding the signing and awareness of the Defendant's terms and conditions.
- •Disputes on the reasonableness of counsel fees, especially the use of both leading and junior counsel.
- •Dispute regarding hourly rate increases and the alleged assurance of minimal involvement of senior partner, Ms Hughes, after Ms Brett joined the case.
Legal Principles
Costs assessed on the indemnity basis, considering reasonable incurrence and amount.
CPR 46.9
Presumption of reasonable incurrence if costs were incurred with express or implied client approval.
CPR 46.9(3)(a)
Presumption of unreasonable incurrence if costs are unusual and the client wasn't warned about non-recoverability.
CPR 46.9(3)(c)
Informed consent requires a full and fair exposition of relevant factors.
Macdougall v Boote Edgar Esterkin [2001] 1 Costs LR 118
Solicitor has a right to reasonable remuneration.
Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Withers LLP [2007] EWHC 2733 (Ch)
Breach of contract regarding cost estimates doesn't necessarily disentitle solicitor from recovering a reasonable fee.
Guest Supplies International Ltd v Ince Gordon Dadds LLP [2022] EWHC 2562 (SCCO)
Outcomes
Rejected the claimant's claim for cost limitation based on an alleged £80,000 estimate.
Found no evidence supporting the existence of such an estimate; the judge deemed the claimant's evidence unreliable and inconsistent.
Accepted that the claimant signed the retainer and was bound by the terms and conditions.
The judge found the claimant's evidence regarding the signing of the documents and her awareness of the terms and conditions to be not credible.
Rejected the claimant's argument that she was not responsible for the fees.
The judge found that the claimant was repeatedly informed of her personal liability and that her interpretation of assurances from the defendant was a distortion of the facts.
Rejected the claim for limiting counsel fees to junior counsel fees.
The claimant authorized and chose the leading counsel. The use of leading and junior counsel was deemed standard practice in such cases.
The defendant is entitled to recover increased hourly rates.
The claimant was bound by the terms and conditions which allowed for such increases.
Rejected the claim to limit Ms Brett's fees based on an alleged assurance of minimal involvement from Ms Hughes.
The judge found no evidence to support such an assurance.
Similar Cases
Protopapas Solicitors (a firm) v John Michaelides & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2929 (SCCO)
MBR Acres Limited & Ors v Gillian Frances McGivern
[2024] EWHC 1869 (SCCO)
Intersar Al-Balhaa & Anor v RMG Residential Management Group Ltd
[2024] EWHC 229 (KB)
Ashley Holcroft v Thorneycroft Solicitors Limited
[2024] EWHC 1473 (KB)