Megantic Services Ltd v Dorsey & Whitney

Megantic Services Ltd v Dorsey & Whitney

The master was entitled to order an interim payment of £175,000 as the defence and counterclaim were not substantiated with evidence or detail to show the sum due was less. The bills were sufficiently signed for the purposes of the Solicitors Act, and any technical non-compliance was directory, not mandatory. The appeal is dismissed as there was no error in the master's exercise of discretion.

Parties
Defendant/applicant: Megantic Services Ltd; Claimant/respondent: Dorsey & Whitney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/costs) / Appeal From Orders of the Master Regarding Interim Payment and Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitor Client Costs, Interim Payments, Assessment of Costs, Signature Requirements Under Solicitors Act, Professional Negligence Allegations
Civil Procedure Contract Law Legal Profession Regulation Solicitor Client Costs Interim Payments Assessment of Costs Signature Requirements Under Solicitors Act Professional Negligence Allegations

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Megantic Services Ltd

Defendant/applicant

Dorsey & Whitney

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/costs) / Appeal From Orders of the Master Regarding Interim Payment and Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the master erred in ordering an interim payment of £175,000 to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the bills delivered complied with the Solicitors Act 1974
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's counterclaim and defence raised a real prospect of reducing the sum below £175,000

Ratio Decidendi

The master was entitled to order an interim payment of £175,000 as the defence and counterclaim were not substantiated with evidence or detail to show the sum due was less. The bills were sufficiently signed for the purposes of the Solicitors Act, and any technical non-compliance was directory, not mandatory. The appeal is dismissed as there was no error in the master's exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against interim payment order dismissed
  • Appeal against order regarding pleadings dismissed