A recent decision on billing comes under fire for generating unacceptable confusion
- Considers Richard Slade v Boodia and Boodia, and the practice of issuing interim bills
- Asserts the decision interprets old common law without recognising its flexibility to accommodate modern billing practice
The confusion generated by the High Court decision in Richard Slade & Company v Boodia and Boodia [2017] EWHC 2699 (QB) needs to be put right.
The rights of a solicitor to sue on, and a client to challenge, bills arises under the Solicitors Act 1974. However, the Act does not define what is a bill. More critically for the case, it does not define what is an interim statute bill.
The judge in Richard Slade has interpreted old common law authority on those concepts arguably without recognising its flexibility to reflect the modern practice of interim bills which parties often for good reason treat as being final. The old authorities looked to whether the bills were final in respect of an entire case, or at least in respect of an interim period. But does
