Vlamaki v Sookias & Sookias [2015] EWHC 3334 (QB) (20 November 2015)

Vlamaki v Sookias & Sookias [2015] EWHC 3334 (QB) (20 November 2015)

The retainer was ambiguous as to whether interim bills were statute bills, and such ambiguity must be resolved against the solicitors. Therefore, Sookias & Sookias were not contractually entitled to render interim statute bills while work was in progress. The October 2013 letter did not convert previous invoices into statute bills or crystallise the sums due for the purposes of assessment. As no statute bill had been delivered, the application for assessment was premature.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3334 (QB)
Parties
Claimant (respondent): Dr Zoe Vlamaki; Defendants (appellants): Sookias & Sookias
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Order of Master Campbell in the Senior Costs Office / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.
Legal Topics
Solicitors' Retainers, Statute Bills, Assessment of Costs, Interpretation of Retainer Agreements, Solicitors Act 1974 S.70
Costs Law Contract Law Legal Profession Solicitors' Retainers Statute Bills Assessment of Costs Interpretation of Retainer Agreements Solicitors Act 1974 S.70

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Zoe Vlamaki

Claimant (respondent)

Sookias & Sookias

Defendants (appellants)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Order of Master Campbell in the Senior Costs Office / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the retainer permitted Sookias & Sookias to render interim statute bills while work was in progress
  2. 2 Whether the October 2013 letter converted previous invoices into statute bills or rendered the application for assessment premature

Ratio Decidendi

The retainer was ambiguous as to whether interim bills were statute bills, and such ambiguity must be resolved against the solicitors. Therefore, Sookias & Sookias were not contractually entitled to render interim statute bills while work was in progress. The October 2013 letter did not convert previous invoices into statute bills or crystallise the sums due for the purposes of assessment. As no statute bill had been delivered, the application for assessment was premature.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.

Orders

  • Appeal on ground 1 (retainer permitted interim statute bills) dismissed.
  • Appeal on ground 2 (prematurity of assessment application) allowed.