Innocent v Hill

On an appeal concerning disputed fees, the Court of Appeal may correct an established mathematical error but should not determine disputed factual questions requiring further evidence. Its appellate function is to review whether the lower court reached the correct decision. Where the remaining issue concerns the factual basis on which invoices were prepared, the appropriate course is to remit that issue to the lower court, which may vary the judgment accordingly.

Stephens Innocent sued its former client, Keith Hill, for unpaid legal fees. The District Judge entered summary judgment for £1,698.67 and struck out the defence and counterclaim. The appeal to the County Court was dismissed by His Honour Judge Goldstein.

On a second-tier appeal, the Court of Appeal considered evidence showing that the arithmetic reduced the amount apparently due to £806.73. It also considered a new issue: whether the invoices used the correct hourly basis for non-contentious business, given that the Court of Appeal had previously treated the work as non-contentious. The central question was whether that issue should be decided by the Court of Appeal or remitted to the District Judge.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the arithmetic in the solicitors’ calculation was correct. The judgment was therefore reduced from £1,698.67 to £806.73.
2. The remaining dispute concerned whether the invoices had been prepared using the correct hourly rate for a solicitor undertaking non-contentious business. That issue had not previously been raised in its present form and could require further documents or oral or affidavit evidence.
3. The Court of Appeal’s function was to decide whether the lower court’s decision had been correctly reached. It was not a court of first instance for deciding disputed questions of fact. The issue was therefore remitted to the District Judge, who was authorised to vary the judgment sum according to the determination.
4. The costs of the remitted exercise were left to the District Judge according to the merits. There was no order as to the costs of the appeal, and the District Judge was free to reconsider the costs order below.

• Central London County Court: District Judge Lightman entered summary judgment on 16 November 1999 for £1,698.67 and struck out the defence and counterclaim.
• Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Goldstein dismissed the appeal on 24 March 2000.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed, the judgment was reduced to £806.73, and the issue concerning the correct hourly basis for the non-contentious work was remitted to the District Judge.