header-logo header-logo

27 February 2026 / David Bailey-Vella
Issue: 8151 / Categories: Features , Profession , Costs , Technology , Legal services , Disclosure
printer mail-detail

Medium doesn’t matter

243386

David Bailey-Vella weighs up WhatsApp, ‘the file’, & the modern realities of costs disclosure

  • The Senior Courts Costs Office’s decision in MacInnes v DWF Law LLP underlines that a solicitor’s ‘file’ is defined by what the client has been billed for, not where or how the communication was stored.

Digital communications are inseparable from modern practice. Yet many firms still treat WhatsApp and similar channels as peripheral to the ‘real’ file. The decision of the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) in MacInnes v DWF Law LLP [2025] EWHC 3252 (SCCO) brings that disconnect into sharp relief.

The claimants applied for a declaration that DWF had breached an unless order requiring a ‘complete digital copy’ of its files relating to billed instructions. Costs Judge Nagalingam agreed: WhatsApp messages that related to charged-for work should have been disclosed, and they were not. The sanction was decisive: DWF was debarred from participating in the substantive detailed assessment (save for limited preliminary issues).

The core issue: what is the ‘file’?

The question

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll