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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll