Costs judge Jennifer James set out a series of problems she spotted with a 65-page bill, in Kapoor v Johal [2024] EWHC 2853 (SCCO). These included claiming more money than the law firm charged its client and creating attendance notes after the event in an attempt to justify the costs.
Costs Judge James said: ‘Having spent two days in court and as long again after the hearing reviewing the file, I have found the bill to be riddled with claims that (regrettably) I find dishonest, and unreasonable and improper.’
She referred the solicitor to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for investigation but was unable to do the same for the costs draftsman, as he was unregulated. The judge said: ‘If [he] were a costs lawyer, I would report him to the ACL [Association of Costs Lawyers], but as he is not practising in the regulated sector, I simply note that I consider his conduct also warrants investigation.’
ACL vice-chair David Bailey-Vella said the ruling ‘highlights a significant shortcoming of the current regulatory regime.
‘Costs has become a very specialist area of law and it is not for those without rigorous training and oversight. It is hard to understand why solicitors are willing to put their costs recovery at risk by not ensuring they take expert advice from properly trained and regulated professionals. That is, after all, what they advise their own clients to do.’
Bailey-Vella urged the Legal Services Board to take action to ensure regulatory safeguards are put in place. He pointed out there is no other part of the legal profession where unregulated providers working for unregulated businesses are able to do exactly the same work as regulated ones but without any of the consumer protections in place.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
