Rippon Patel And French LLP v Mowlam [2020] EWHC 1079 (QB) (06 May 2020)

Rippon Patel And French LLP v Mowlam [2020] EWHC 1079 (QB) (06 May 2020)

The bill had not been fully paid as the VAT element remained in the client account; special circumstances existed due to ambiguity over VAT and uncertainty over the actual costs incurred at settlement; delay did not cause material prejudice and did not preclude assessment; the Master did not err in refusing to order security for costs or limit the assessment to VAT.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1079
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Rippon Patel and French LLP; Respondent/claimant: Ronald Mowlam
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Senior Court Costs Office
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitor Client Costs Assessment, Special Circumstances Under Solicitors Act 1974 S.70, Delay in Application for Assessment, VAT on Legal Costs, Security for Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Solicitor Client Costs Assessment Special Circumstances Under Solicitors Act 1974 S.70 Delay in Application for Assessment VAT on Legal Costs Security for Costs

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rippon Patel and French LLP

Appellant/defendant

Ronald Mowlam

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Senior Court Costs Office

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the solicitor's bill had been 'paid' for the purposes of s.70(4) Solicitors Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether 'special circumstances' existed to justify a detailed assessment under s.70(3) Solicitors Act 1974
  3. 3 Whether delay in applying for assessment should preclude an order for assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The bill had not been fully paid as the VAT element remained in the client account; special circumstances existed due to ambiguity over VAT and uncertainty over the actual costs incurred at settlement; delay did not cause material prejudice and did not preclude assessment; the Master did not err in refusing to order security for costs or limit the assessment to VAT.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Detailed assessment of the Appellant's bill to proceed
  • Costs to follow the event, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed