header-logo header-logo

Specifics matter when billing clients

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

Muckle LLP—Phoebe Gogarty

Muckle LLP—Phoebe Gogarty

North East firm welcomes employment specialist

Browne Jacobson—Colette Withey

Browne Jacobson—Colette Withey

Partner joins commercial and technology practice

Ellisons—Lizzy Firmin

Ellisons—Lizzy Firmin

Chief operating officer joins equity partnership

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has restated a fundamental truth, writes John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke, in this week's NLJ: only authorised persons can conduct litigation. The decision sparked alarm, but Gould stresses it merely confirms the Legal Services Act 2007
The government’s decision to make the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the Single Professional Services Supervisor marks a watershed in the UK’s fight against money laundering, says Rebecca Hughes of Corker Binning in this week's NLJ. The FCA will now oversee 60,000 firms across legal and accountancy sectors—a massive expansion of remit that raises questions over resources and readiness 
The High Court's decision in Parfitt v Jones [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch) provided a striking reminder of the need to instruct the right expert in retrospective capacity assessments, says Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell in NLJ this week
Paige Coulter of Quinn Emanuel reports on the UK’s first statutory definition of SLAPPs under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Sophie Houghton of LexisPSL distils the key lesson from recent costs cases: if you want to exceed guideline hourly rates (GHR), you must prove why
back-to-top-scroll