header-logo header-logo

13 December 2007
Issue: 7301 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Civil Litigation

Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Withers LLP [2007] EWHC 2733 (Ch), [2007] All ER (D) 385 (Nov)

Solicitors sought to recover costs from their client substantially in excess of the amount shown in the original estimate (the trial having lasted considerably longer than expected). 

HELD The contractual position between solicitor and client is governed by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, s 15 entitling the solicitor to reasonable remuneration for services provided. A solicitor is not bound by the terms of an estimate. However, where a solicitor’s fees are to be subjected to a detailed assessment, any estimate of costs given to the client is a factor that may be taken into consideration as a yardstick for determining what is reasonable.

Even so, where there is a satisfactory explanation for the difference between the estimate and the amount billed, the estimate might cease to be useful as a yardstick by which to measure reasonableness.

Any reliance placed upon the estimate by the client is also a factor that may be taken into consideration when determining what is reasonable for the client to pay. Because an estimate is not a fixed or maximum price, even where a client relies on the estimate, it will often be the case that the client appreciates that the final bill may be somewhat above the estimate. If the final bill is a little above the estimate then a court might routinely hold that the excess does not prevent it being reasonable for the client to be expected to pay the full bill.

Conversely, if the final bill is significantly above the estimate, a court might routinely feel that the bill had increased by too much so that it was no longer reasonable to expect the client to pay all of it. The court may then be required to exercise its judgment as to what figure could properly be added to the estimate so as not to exceed the sum which it would be reasonable to expect the client to pay.

Issue: 7301 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll