Court dismisses application in solicitor billing dispute

Background of the Case

The High Court, presided over by Costs Judge Leonard, recently addressed a contentious application brought by Clare Griffin against Kleyman & Co Solicitors Ltd. The matter revolved around the delivery of a solicitor's invoice dated 24 August 2020, which Griffin claimed was not received until 9 September 2020. This dispute arose in the context of a detailed assessment of costs following ancillary relief proceedings in Griffin's divorce case.

Pre-Judgment Proceedings

Griffin had engaged Kleyman & Co for legal representation in financial proceedings related to her divorce between March 2020 and June 2021. Following the conclusion of these proceedings, Griffin filed an application under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the assessment of several bills issued by the solicitors. A consent order in May 2022 allowed for the assessment of most bills, totalling £181,954.64.

The detailed assessment hearing, initially set for April 2023, was delayed due to court errors and rescheduled for August 2023. However, the hearing was adjourned to address a preliminary issue regarding the limitation of the defendant's recoverable costs based on prior estimates provided to Griffin.

The Disputed Invoice

The core of the dispute was whether the 24 August 2020 invoice was delivered promptly. Griffin's evidence suggested she received two invoices on 9 September 2020, while the defendant claimed all invoices were sent upon issuance. This discrepancy was significant as it pertained to Griffin's awareness of the escalating legal costs.

Judgment of 14 May 2024

In his judgment, Costs Judge Leonard concluded that the defendant's costs should not be limited by the estimates given, citing Griffin's unreasonable conduct during the retainer. He found it more likely that the disputed invoice was delivered when issued, although he acknowledged Griffin's shock at the September bill's amount.

Post-Judgment Developments

Following the judgment, Griffin sought further documentation from the defendant to substantiate her claim regarding the invoice delivery. Despite the defendant's inability to locate the specific email, Judge Leonard suggested the parties resolve the issue amicably, which they failed to do, prompting Griffin's application.

The Application Hearing

Griffin's application sought a declaration that the invoice was not delivered until September and an extension of time to appeal the May judgment. However, Judge Leonard noted the court's jurisdiction to entertain such applications had expired, referencing relevant procedural rules.

Conclusion of the Court

Judge Leonard dismissed the application, emphasising the principle of finality in litigation. He found no substantive new evidence to warrant reopening the judgment and rejected the notion that Ms Kleyman's evidence was misleading. The application was deemed too late and lacking in material significance to alter the previous findings.

Learn More

For more information on solicitor-client cost assessments, see BeCivil's guide to Contractor Law.