header-logo header-logo

24 October 2024
Issue: 8092 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Specifics matter when billing clients

A decision to deny an accident victim the right to assessment of his solicitors’ bill has been overturned by the Supreme Court, in an important ruling on client protection

Dean Menzies was awarded £275,000 in damages in 2019, from which his legal representatives Oakwood Solicitors—instructed to pursue the claim on a conditional fee basis—deducted a percentage for fees and charges, claiming Menzies agreed to these in advance via his contract for legal services. Menzies disagreed.

Ruling in Oakwood Solicitors Ltd v Menzies [2024] UKSC 34 this week, five Justices unanimously held Menzies had a right to have the bill assessed, on the grounds he had never agreed to the specific amount of deduction.

Delivering the lead judgment, Lord Hamblen said: ‘This emphasis on delivery highlights that the detail of the bill delivered, and the opportunity for the client to consider that detail, is of central importance... The client needs to have been informed of and have provided agreement to the amount in respect of which the solicitor intends to take payment pursuant to their bill.’

James Green, managing director of JG Solicitors Ltd, which represented Menzies in the case, said: ‘This judgment provides the vital clarity we have been seeking for both clients and solicitors on this issue.

‘This is a victory for consumer rights, and I'm delighted to see my client get justice in the Supreme Court.’

Green noted the decision clarifies that clients must give specific authorisation to a deduction amount before statutory time limits start running.

Jack Ridgway, Chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers, said: ‘Whatever your opinion on the outcome, it is good that the Supreme Court has provided clarity on level of consent needed before a solicitor can deduct their costs from a client’s damages.

‘Many law firms will now need to revise their retainers to ensure they still receive prompt payment while complying with the ruling. I’m sure they will quickly adapt.

‘It is, however, disappointing that the Supreme Court did not join the Court of Appeal’s call for the Solicitors Act 1974 to be updated—there is unanimous agreement across the costs world that the costs provisions are not fit for purpose in the modern era.’

Issue: 8092 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll