Karis Developments Ltd v EMW Law LLP [2020] EWHC B14 (Costs) (13 January 2020)

Karis Developments Ltd v EMW Law LLP [2020] EWHC B14 (Costs) (13 January 2020)

The £50,000 payment was agreed to cover all outstanding unbilled fees on all matters for which the Defendant was acting for the Claimant as of the date of payment, not just the LDC matter. The Defendant is not entitled to bill separately for the other matters listed. The Claimant's evidence was preferred over the Defendant's, supported by contemporaneous documents and the conduct of the parties. The Defendant's billing practices were inconsistent and unreliable, and the agreement was to 'clear the decks' for all outstanding fees.

Citation
[2020] EWHC B14 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Karis Developments Limited; Defendant: EMW Law LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Detailed Assessment of Solicitor's Bills (costs Proceedings) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues After Written and Oral Submissions
Outcome
For the Claimant on the principal preliminary issue.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa), Solicitors' Bills, Scope of Retainer, Conflict of Interest, Estoppel, Entire Agreement Clauses, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Misrepresentation Act 1967
Civil Procedure Legal Costs Contract Law Professional Negligence Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa) Solicitors' Bills Scope of Retainer Conflict of Interest +4 more

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 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karis Developments Limited

Claimant

EMW Law LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Detailed Assessment of Solicitor's Bills (costs Proceedings) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues After Written and Oral Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the £50,000 payment covered all outstanding fees on all matters or only the LDC matter up to 25 November 2016
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant was entitled to bill separately for other matters after the £50,000 payment
  3. 3 Whether there was a conflict of interest in the RBS matter justifying assessment at nil

Ratio Decidendi

The £50,000 payment was agreed to cover all outstanding unbilled fees on all matters for which the Defendant was acting for the Claimant as of the date of payment, not just the LDC matter. The Defendant is not entitled to bill separately for the other matters listed. The Claimant's evidence was preferred over the Defendant's, supported by contemporaneous documents and the conduct of the parties. The Defendant's billing practices were inconsistent and unreliable, and the agreement was to 'clear the decks' for all outstanding fees.

Court Disposition

For the Claimant on the principal preliminary issue.

Orders

  • Bills for Ecology Consultancy, Middle Street, Conran & Partners, and RBS to be assessed at nil as they were covered by the £50,000 payment.
  • Defendant not entitled to further payment for these matters beyond the £50,000 already paid.