![]() The Defendant pointed to the fact the Claimant was of limited means and went on to say that it was inherently unlikely that he would have instructed the Solicitors on a private client basis. On 9 August 2018, the Defendant served Points of Dispute.The narrative had been drafted by a Mr Brian Varney, an experienced costs consultant, but it seems that he had not been given access to the documents that would have allowed him to draft it accurately. In her oral evidence, Ms Wilson accepted that this was an error. Notwithstanding this, Ms Wilson certified the Bill of Costs both as to accuracy and the indemnity principle. This was wrong: there had been no private retainer of any kind.‘The matter was conducted by Larissa Wilson, a senior Grade A Solicitor, under a private retainer providing for a charging rate.’ The narrative to that Bill of Costs described the contractual arrangements between the Claimant and the Solicitors in the following way: This related solely to the possession proceedings (including the counterclaim). On 13 July 2018, the Claimant served a Bill of Costs for £56,904 (inclusive of VAT).THE ERRORS IN THE WAY THE BILL WAS DRAWN There were a number of errors in the way in which the bill was drawn. The court was examining whether the indemnity principle had been breached. The claimant had entered into three separate conditional fee agreements with his legal advisers. The case related to a disputed will and other matters. ![]() In an inter partes assessment of costs where the defendant was paying costs the court was called upon to assess the nature of the claimant’s conditional fee agreement. ![]() I also find that no reasonable solicitor who properly understood his or her professional obligations would have believed otherwise.” “It is undoubtedly true that the Solicitors have created a contractual quagmire in which even they lost their way… the retainer documentation (including the Third Agreement) could be likened to a hydra.” “I find that each and every one of the agreements was not just unsuitable for the Claimant’s needs, but entirely unsuitable the mere fact that the Claimant could not have even begun to understand them compels me to such a conclusion. Equally there are lessons for those signing certificates for bills of costs. There are important lessons here for any solicitor thinking of, or using, their own “bespoke” conditional fee agreements. A highly complex series of conditional fee agreements were held to be in breach of the indemnity principle. The judgment of Deputy Master Friston in Anthony v Collins EWHC B14 (Costs) makes for interesting reading. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |