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

Gardner Leader—Charlotte Botham & Belinda Sinnott

Gardner Leader—Charlotte Botham & Belinda Sinnott

Law firm strengthens real estate team with two new partners

DR Solicitors—Sarah Cook

DR Solicitors—Sarah Cook

DR Solicitors strengthens primary care expertise with appointment of legal director

Womble Bond Dickinson—David Varney

Womble Bond Dickinson—David Varney

Womble Bond Dickinson appoints David Varney to strengthen digital practice

NEWS
A deputy costs judge correctly exercised his discretion to allow late service rather than strike out the point of dispute, the Court of Appeal has held
Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and five others have lost their case against the publisher of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, in Various Claimants v Associated Newspapers [2026] EWHC 1637 (KB)
Public confidence in the justice system is being undermined by a lack of accessible, useable data, magistrates have warned
The Sentencing Council has launched draft guidelines for facilitation and endangering another person during a sea crossing to the UK
Government proposals to make independent written legal advice a prerequisite for workplace non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) may prove unworkable, according to a senior employment lawyer
back-to-top-scroll