Richard Slade and Company Plc v Andrew Erlam
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Gosnell |
| Judgment Date | 16 February 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 325 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: E90SE017 |
| Year | 2022 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2022] EWHC 325 (QB)
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Gosnell
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Case No: E90SE017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
LEEDS DISTRICT REGISTRY
The Combined Court Centre, Oxford Row, Leeds
Mr Benjamin Williams QC (instructed by Richard Slade and Company) for the Appellant
Mr Robin Dunne (instructed by Checkmylegalfees.com) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 20 th January 2022
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Gosnell
Introduction
On 7 th February 2018 the Respondent issued a Part 8 Claim against the Appellant seeking an order for assessment of a bill of costs representing the invoices rendered to him for legal services and in the alternative, if the court found that there was no bill capable of assessment, an order for delivery of such a bill. On 22 nd November 2019 District Judge Batchelor concluded this process by finding that there was no bill capable of assessment and so she ordered the Appellant to prepare a final statute bill pursuant to s 68 Solicitors Act 1974. It is this decision which the Appellant seeks to appeal. On 20 th January 2022 I heard the appeal and this is my reserved judgment in respect of it.
The factual background
The Respondent and three others brought a petition in the Election Court to challenge the election of Mr Lutfur Rahman as Mayor of Tower Hamlets. They were successful in the petition and awarded their costs, including an order for a payment on account of costs of £250,000. They instructed the Appellant solicitors to attempt to assess and enforce the costs order against Mr Rahman. A meeting took place between the Respondent and one of the other petitioners and Mr Slade of the Appellant company in which he gave an estimate of the likely costs involved in enforcing the costs order of £50,000 – £80,000. In the event, the attempts at enforcement became more complicated than anticipated with the Appellant company also having to deal with an application for a freezing injunction, charging orders, a Judicial Review, a costs assessment, Mr Rahman's bankruptcy and a challenge by his wife in respect of her beneficial interest in one of the properties. No revised estimate of costs was provided subsequently although the Appellant company did provide revised estimates for separate pieces of work thereafter.
Funding arrangements
The Respondent entered into a retainer with the Appellant dated 27 th April 2015 the terms of which are in writing but the legal meaning of which is in dispute. Certain invoices were tendered to the Respondent during the period that this retainer applied. On 25 th January 2016 the parties entered into a subsequent retainer on a Conditional Fee Agreement (“CFA”) basis which was retrospective in scope from 27 th June 2015. Again this document is in writing. There was no success fee involved and the trigger condition for payment was to the extent of recovery of funds from Mr Rahman. Further invoices were submitted during the currency of the CFA. The CFA included a provision that the client could terminate the retainer at any time whereupon the client would become liable for the Appellant's basic costs and disbursements. The Respondent did in fact terminate the retainer on 15 th June 2016 triggering the liability to pay costs. The Respondent continued the litigation using new solicitors.
The history of these proceedings
Sadly, the history of these proceedings is not straightforward either, but I will only give a brief summary so far as it is germane to my decision. The Respondent issued Part 8 proceedings on 7 th February 2018 seeking an assessment of the bill in terms of the various invoices which had been rendered to him. The assessment was listed before District Judge Bellamy who was a Regional Costs Judge. He found that the bill could not be assessed because it contained invoices which purported to be Interim Statute Bills but he found that they could not be treated as such because the charges for the Appellant's profit costs and disbursements had been billed separately on different invoices. The Appellant appealed this decision and in the meantime the Court of Appeal resolved this issue in Richard Slade and Company v Boodia [2018] EWCA Civ 2667 finding that there was nothing inherently wrong in billing costs and disbursements separately. As a result the appeal was compromised on the basis that the decision of District Judge Bellamy would be set aside and a new assessment ordered before a different District Judge.
The case was allocated to District Judge Batchelor who is also a Regional Costs Judge. She made the very sensible suggestion that the parties should attempt to compromise by reaching agreement on the quantum of the bill but they failed to accept her advice. She heard a Solicitor Advocate for the Appellant and a Costs Lawyer for the Respondent at the hearing below on 5 th September 2019 and gave judgment at a separate hearing on 19 th November 2019. An appeal was brought against this decision and permission to appeal was given by Mrs Justice Lambert on 14 th October 2021 releasing the appeal to me to try. Regrettably, the progress of the appeal was substantially delayed at Sheffield County Court before it was eventually referred to this Registry in the summer of 2021.
The skeleton argument for permission to appeal and the Respondents skeleton opposing the same were both drafted by the advocates who appeared below. At the appeal before me Mr Williams QC appeared for the Appellant and Mr Dunne for the Respondent. Both of them chose to make submissions which bore no real relation to the skeleton arguments which had been served no doubt because they wanted to argue the case in a different way. Both of them complained that the other had sought to put arguments before the appeal court which had not been made below and I suspect these complaints may well have some force. I did not have the skeleton arguments which had been deployed before District Judge Batchelor, nor did I have a transcript of the hearing (other than the judgment) and so I was not able to properly resolve these disputes. I do not ask for, or intend to read those documents now. I did, however, suggest to both counsel that this was not a helpful way to conduct an appeal from my point of view.
The work done by the Appellant and the bills rendered
The Appellant conducted the following matters for the Respondent and his fellow clients. The abbreviations are those which appear on the invoices to distinguish the different strands of work:
(1) Lutfur Rahman Enforcement of Judgment (LUTRAH): this was the file on which the main work of enforcing the costs order was carried out, including the freezing injunction, the charging orders and the trial.
(2) Judicial Review (JUDREV): this was the file on which the work of resisting Mr Rahman's application for judicial review was carried out.
(3) Possession and Sale of 3 Grace Street (POSAND): this was the file on which the work of organising the sale of the one property over which the Petitioners obtained a final charging order was carried out.
(4) Costs Assessment (COSASS): this was the file on which the work of assisting with the preparation of the Petitioners' bill of costs was carried out. The Petitioners retained a costs lawyer, Shirley Dean, directly, on A's recommendation.
(5) Bankruptcy – Rahman (BANRAH): this was the file on which the work of preparing for and attending the creditors' meeting and interaction with the trustee in bankruptcy was carried out.
The Appellant raised eighteen bills totalling £236,607.83. The bills are linked to the individual matter files by the six letter file codes mentioned above:
Lutfur Rahman Enforcement of Judgment
(1) IN801701-FF (3.6.15). Concise bill for fees for April and May 2015. £6,000.
(2) IN801717 (3.6.15). Bill for disbursements. £280.
(3) IN801750-FF (7.7.15). Concise bill for fees for June 2015. £4,800.
(4) IN801760 (7.7.15). Bill for disbursements. £635.
(5) IN801908 (18.9.15). Bill for disbursements. £4,916.
(6) IN801922-FF (6.1015). Concise bill for fees for 29 June to 9 July 2015. £4,250.
(7) IN802027 ( 5.1215). Bill for disbursements. £626.08.
(8) 4836 (18.2.16). Detailed bill for fees for 10 July 2015 to 31 January 2016. £109,173.60.
(9) IN802187 (20.2.16). Bill for disbursements. £44,479.39.
(10) IN802322 (5.5.16). Bill for disbursements. £1,389.68.
(11) 4986 (23.6.16). Detailed bill for fees, 1 February to 26 May 2016. £10,212.96.
(12) IN802451 (5.7.16). Bill for disbursements. £3,780.
Judicial Review
(1) IN801809 (5.8.15). Bill for disbursements. £270.48.
(2) 4837 (18.2.16). Detailed bill for fees for 20 July 2015 to 1 February 2016. £12,488.64.
Costs Assessment
(1) 4838 (18.2.16). Detailed bill for fees for 3 August 2015 to 28 January 2016. £6,055.20.
Bankruptcy
(1) 4985 (23.6.16). Detailed bill for fees for 21 December 2015 to 25 May 2016. £15,655.20.
Possession and Sale of 3 Grace Street
(1) IN802159 (3.2.16). Bill for disbursements. £480.
(2) 4987 (23.6.16). Detailed bill for fees for 28 January to 1 June 2016. £11,115.60.
The Judgment below
Whilst the Judgment is expressed to be an extempore judgement it is clear that the Judge had prepared the judgment in advance as it is comprehensive, well-drafted and runs to some ten pages of single-spaced text. I will set out her reasoning in more detail in when analysing the Grounds of Appeal. A brief summary of her decision is as follows:
a) the first retainer did not permit the rendering of interim statute bills and so the first four bills rendered could not, for that reason, be interim statute bills;
b) the CFA did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dean Menzies v Oakwood Solicitors Ltd
...statutory requirement that a bill should inform the client of their right to an assessment. In Richard Slade and Company plc v. Erlam [2022] EWHC 325 (QB), [2022] Costs LR 489, HHJ Gosnell, sitting as a judge of the High Court, said: 25. … When dealing with a client's right to seek an asse......
-
Mr Bidzina Ivanishvili v Signature Litigation LLP
...EWCA Civ 2667, Abedi v Penningtons [2000] EWCA Civ 85, Davidsons v Jones-Fenleigh [1980] 124 SJ 204 and Richard Slade & Co v Erlam [2022] EWHC 325 (QB). I must also mention Adams v Al Malik [2014] 6 Costs LR 985, a decision on permission to appeal and therefore persuasive rather than direc......
-
Mr Jugmohan Boodia v Richard Slade T/A Richard Slade & Company Solicitors
...as a Judge of the High Court) in January of this year. In the Defendant's submission, the learned Judge in that case (citation [2022] EWHC 325 (QB)) has now decided the Preliminary Issue in its favour, and I am bound by that decision. As such, per the Defendant there really is nothing left......