header-logo header-logo

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

Specifics matter when billing clients

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

WSP Solicitors—David Ashcroft & Jessica O’Shea

WSP Solicitors—David Ashcroft & Jessica O’Shea

Commercial property and child law teams expand with senior hires

Duxton Hill Chambers—Lucas Bastin KC & Joshua Hiew

Duxton Hill Chambers—Lucas Bastin KC & Joshua Hiew

Set expands London and Singapore offering with senior international disputes hires

Gilson Gray—Gregor Duthie & Stephen Forsyth

Gilson Gray—Gregor Duthie & Stephen Forsyth

Firm strengthens real estate and litigation teams with partner promotions

NEWS
Behind the profession’s polished exterior, lawyers are ‘internally drained rather than physically tired’, according to a stark assessment of burnout in legal practice
Five years after the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 came into force, concerns remain that the family courts continue to minimise allegations of abuse in child contact disputes
Uber has built a formidable strategy for insulating itself from liability for drivers’ conduct, but the legal terrain differs sharply between the US and England and Wales
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 marks a constitutional watershed by severing the centuries-old link between hereditary titles and automatic membership of the upper chamber
The Civil Justice Council’s review of Part III of the Solicitors Act 1974 could mark the end of what one commentator calls an ‘outdated’ and overly technical regime governing solicitor-client fee disputes
back-to-top-scroll