Munkenbeck & Marshall (a firm) v Harold [2005] EWHC 356 (TCC) (17 March 2005)

Munkenbeck & Marshall (a firm) v Harold [2005] EWHC 356 (TCC) (17 March 2005)

The claimant's evidence on time spent was unreliable and unproven, so no additional sum was awarded. Clauses 9.6 and 5.13 of SFA/99 were found to be unfair terms under the 1999 Regulations and thus unenforceable. Interest was awarded at 8% per annum as a fair rate. Costs were ordered on the standard basis, not indemnity, as there was no misconduct or special justification. An interim payment of £60,000 on account of costs was ordered, but the claimant was ordered to pay 90% of the defendant's costs of determining the outstanding issues.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 356 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Munkenbeck & Marshall; Defendant: Michael Harold
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Claim for Outstanding Professional Fees and Counterclaim for Professional Negligence / Post Settlement Hearing on Outstanding Issues
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant for outstanding fees; counterclaim dismissed; no additional sum for time spent; interest at 8% per annum awarded; costs on standard basis; interim payment of £60,000 on account of costs; claimant to pay 90% of defendant's costs of determining outstanding issues.
Legal Topics
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, Professional Fees, Interest on Debts, Costs Assessment, Conditional Fee Agreements
Contract Law Consumer Law Civil Procedure Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Professional Fees 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Munkenbeck & Marshall

Claimant

Michael Harold

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim for Outstanding Professional Fees and Counterclaim for Professional Negligence / Post Settlement Hearing 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 claimant's evidence on time spent was unreliable and unproven, so no additional sum was awarded. Clauses 9.6 and 5.13 of SFA/99 were found to be unfair terms under the 1999 Regulations and thus unenforceable. Interest was awarded at 8% per annum as a fair rate. Costs were ordered on the standard basis, not indemnity, as there was no misconduct or special justification. An interim payment of £60,000 on account of costs was ordered, but the claimant was ordered to pay 90% of the defendant's costs of determining the outstanding issues.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant for outstanding fees; counterclaim dismissed; no additional sum for time spent; interest at 8% per annum awarded; costs on standard basis; interim payment of £60,000 on account of costs; claimant to pay 90% of defendant's costs of determining outstanding issues.

Orders

  • Judgment for claimant for £53,424.36 plus interest at 8% per annum from 12 November 2002 to 12 January 2005 and thereafter
  • Counterclaim dismissed