Sprey v Rawlison Butler LLP [2018] EWHC 354 (QB) (26 February 2018)

Sprey v Rawlison Butler LLP [2018] EWHC 354 (QB) (26 February 2018)

The discounted monthly invoices rendered under the CFA were not statute bills but payments on account or Chamberlain bills; the CFA did not permit or anticipate the rendering of interim statute bills; there was no inferred agreement by conduct to treat the monthly bills as statute bills; the right to assessment under s.70 Solicitors Act 1974 arose only at the end of the case or termination of the retainer.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 354 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Laurence Sprey; Defendant/respondent: Rawlison Butler LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Senior Courts Costs Office (costs Assessment) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Solicitor Client Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Statute Bills, Assessment of Costs, Solicitors Act 1974
Civil Procedure Legal Costs Solicitor Client Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Statute Bills Assessment of Costs Solicitors Act 1974

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laurence Sprey

Claimant/appellant

Rawlison Butler LLP

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Senior Courts Costs Office (costs Assessment) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether monthly bills delivered by a solicitor under a discounted conditional fee agreement are 'statute bills' under the Solicitors Act 1974 and thus capable of detailed assessment under s.70.
  2. 2 Whether the agreement between the parties permitted the rendering of interim statute bills under the CFA.
  3. 3 Whether there was an inferred agreement by conduct that the monthly bills were statute bills.

Ratio Decidendi

The discounted monthly invoices rendered under the CFA were not statute bills but payments on account or Chamberlain bills; the CFA did not permit or anticipate the rendering of interim statute bills; there was no inferred agreement by conduct to treat the monthly bills as statute bills; the right to assessment under s.70 Solicitors Act 1974 arose only at the end of the case or termination of the retainer.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Master Rowley's decision set aside; monthly bills not statute bills; right to assessment preserved; consequential order to be agreed by Counsel.