header-logo header-logo

Civil Litigation

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

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

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll