Penningtons (a firm) v Brown

Under section 64(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974, the court must determine the substance of a client’s request rather than apply an over-technical construction to a layman’s words. A request for a full breakdown of a gross sum bill may amount to a requirement for delivery of a bill containing detailed items, even where the client refers to the existing document as a bill and says that it will be taxed. The client’s lack of knowledge of the statutory distinction is relevant to construction. Where the communication is equivocal, solicitors should clarify whether a detailed bill is required.

Penningtons claimed the balance of fees for representing Steven Brown in two High Court actions. The firm had delivered what was treated as a gross sum bill. Brown’s subsequent letter sought a full breakdown, referred to taxation, and requested supporting details for particular expenses.

The District Judge treated the letter as a request for particulars of the gross bill. On appeal, Her Honour Judge Bonvin held that it required a bill containing detailed items. Leave to appeal was later granted by Peter Gibson LJ and Holman J. The central issue was whether the letter engaged section 64(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974.

1. Appeal dismissed. The letter of 3 February 1997 was a requirement under section 64(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974 for delivery, in lieu of the gross sum bill, of a bill containing detailed items. The gross sum bill therefore became of no effect.
2. Lord Justice Pill held that the court must consider the substance of the request. The phrase seeking a full breakdown of the firm’s bill could only reasonably be understood as requesting the level of detail normally contained in a bill prepared for taxation. The request for supporting invoices did not confine the request to particulars of the existing document.
3. The references to taxing the bill did not contradict that conclusion. Brown was a layman who was unaware that requesting a detailed bill would render the gross sum bill ineffective. His terminology, including references to the firm’s bill of costs, could not be used to defeat the substance of the request.
4. The approach was consistent with Carlton v Theodore Goddard & Co [1973] 1 WLR 623, which required a request or requirement for a detailed bill to replace the gross sum bill, although no fixed form of words was necessary. The distinction between the two kinds of bill, and the possible consequences of taxation, did not justify an over-technical construction.
5. Sir John Vinelott agreed. In communications from a lay client, doubt should be resolved in favour of the client for whose protection section 64 was enacted. He observed that the detailed bill might prove practically disadvantageous and that the litigation had generated disproportionate costs, but those considerations did not alter the statutory construction.
6. Appeal dismissed with costs. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the decision of Her Honour Judge Bonvin in the Aldershot & Farnham County Court dismissed; leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.
• Aldershot & Farnham County Court: On appeal from District Judge Ackroyd, held that the letter required a bill containing detailed items.
• District Judge Ackroyd: Held that the letter sought particulars of a gross bill.