It’s been another busy year in the world of Solicitor/Own client costs, with no shortage of decisions on the usual issues which crop up when former clients challenge their solicitor’s costs.
The hot topic this year was whether a Solicitor’s invoice was or was not a statute bill, with numerous High Court cases being handed down this year (two of which are mentioned in this article on getting your invoices right). The case of Signature Litigation LLP -v- Ivanishvili [2024] EWCA Civ 901 went all the way to the Court of Appeal, where the decision of Costs Judge Leonard that a series of bills rendered by the appellant solicitors totalling £13 million were not interim statute bills was upheld. The Appellants recently sought permission to appeal from the Supreme Court who have refused permission, stating that the application did not raise an arguable point of law.
It is understood that Costs Judge Rowley is looking into whether a template can be produced for Solicitors to use to avoid hearings on whether or not an invoice is a statute bill and enable Courts to focus on the contents of the bill instead. Until then, one can expect further decisions of a similar nature in 2025.
The most high profile case to come out in this area is unarguably the Supreme Court decision in Oakwood Solicitors Ltd -v- Menzies [2024] UKSC 34, which dealt with when a Solicitor’s invoice is paid for the purpose of time running on a Solicitor Act assessment. The key takeaway from that case was that if you are taking payment of your invoice from a client’s damages or deducting it from funds held on account, you must be able to show that the client has agreed to the sum to be taken.
In Holcroft -v- Thorneycroft Solicitors Ltd [2024] EWHC 1473 (KB) Mr. Justice Eyre found there was such an agreement in circumstances where a Claimant in a personal injury claim had been advised of an offer made by the Defendant to that claim and such advice included advice on the deduction that would be taken from the client’s damages.
There were also developments in the world of Beneficiaries challenging a Professional Executor’s fees, with Kenig –v- Thompson Snell & Passmore confirming the Court can be more flexible with the time limits for assessment in the case of a beneficiary and that fully informed consent to an invoice by an Executor is likely to be a major consideration, but may not be determinative.
Given the deluge of cases in this area, it is no wonder that the Court have also considered whether taking such challenges is a good use of their time. In Bendriss –v- Nicholson Jones Sutton Solicitors Ltd [2024] EWHC 1100, the Claimant sought specific disclosure relating to an ATE premium claimed by the Defendant in the sum of £392 including IPT in the context of Solicitor Act assessment of a bill of £9,103.60. Costs Judge Rowley noted the Claimant’s costs of the application alone were £28,535 and the Defendant’s were £5,478.90 and invited the parties to address him on the proportionality of such an application, given the comments of the Master of the Rolls in Karatysz –v- SGI Legal LLP [2022] EWCA Civ 1388 that “the courts will have no hesitation in depriving [Claimants] of their costs…if they continue to bring trivial claims for the assessment of small bills to the High Court”. Costs Judge Rowley ultimately dismissed the application, but noted that dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost can require the Court to fetter the parties’ activities and for those reasons he had doubts about the appropriateness of ordering the further disclosure sought by the Claimant.
With so many challenges being pursued by former clients, it’s all the more important to make sure you are getting your retainer, estimates and invoices right.