Munkenbeck & Marshall (a firm) v Harold

Munkenbeck & Marshall (a firm) v Harold

The claim for a reasonable sum for time spent fails due to wholly unreliable evidence. Clauses 9.6 and 5.13 of SFA/99 are unfair and not contractually enforceable against the defendant as a consumer. Interest is awarded at 8% per annum, not 12%, on the outstanding fees including VAT. Costs are to be assessed on the standard basis, not indemnity. The defendant is ordered to make an interim payment of £60,000 on account of costs. The claimant is to pay 90% of the defendant's costs of determining the outstanding issues.

Parties
Claimant: Munkenbeck & Marshall; Defendant: Michael Harold
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil (architects' Fees and Professional Negligence) / Post Settlement Judgment on Outstanding Issues
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant for outstanding fees; counterclaim dismissed; claim for time spent dismissed; interest at 8% awarded; costs on standard basis; interim payment of £60,000 ordered; claimant to pay 90% of defendant's costs of determining outstanding issues.
Legal Topics
Unfair Contract Terms, Interest on Debts, Costs Assessment, Conditional Fee Agreements
Contract Law Consumer Protection Civil Procedure Unfair Contract Terms Interest on Debts Costs Assessment Conditional Fee Agreements

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Munkenbeck & Marshall

Claimant

Michael Harold

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (architects' Fees and Professional Negligence) / Post Settlement Judgment on Outstanding Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to a reasonable sum for time spent in connection with the proceedings
  2. 2 Whether interest should be awarded at a rate higher than 8%
  3. 3 Whether costs should be assessed on the standard or indemnity basis

Ratio Decidendi

The claim for a reasonable sum for time spent fails due to wholly unreliable evidence. Clauses 9.6 and 5.13 of SFA/99 are unfair and not contractually enforceable against the defendant as a consumer. Interest is awarded at 8% per annum, not 12%, on the outstanding fees including VAT. Costs are to be assessed on the standard basis, not indemnity. The defendant is ordered to make an interim payment of £60,000 on account of costs. The claimant is to pay 90% of the defendant's costs of determining the outstanding issues.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant for outstanding fees; counterclaim dismissed; claim for time spent dismissed; interest at 8% awarded; costs on standard basis; interim payment of £60,000 ordered; claimant to pay 90% of defendant's costs of determining outstanding issues.

Orders

  • Judgment for claimant for £53,424.36 (including VAT) fees
  • Interest at 8% per annum from 12 November 2002 to 12 January 2005 and thereafter