Byatt v Nash

Section 69 of the Solicitors Act 1974 should not be applied with unnecessary technicality. It protects a client’s opportunity to have bills assessed and challenged, rather than relieving the client from liability for fees. Bills may be combined where they concern different periods of work relating to one transaction, including where delivered to trustees acting as the client’s agent.

For limitation purposes, a written acknowledgment of debt may be established from correspondence read in context. An express heading or formal admission is unnecessary where the surrounding correspondence clearly recognises the outstanding liability.

A solicitor claimed fees for work undertaken in 1991 and 1992. The writ was issued on 26 June 1998. The High Court, on 28 June 2002, held that the claim was saved from limitation by acknowledgments under the Limitation Act 1980 and that several bills could be treated as one bill for the purposes of section 69 of the Solicitors Act 1974.

The defendant renewed an application for permission to appeal, challenging both conclusions. The central issue was whether either challenge had a reasonable prospect of success.

Disposition. Lord Justice Waller refused the renewed application for permission to appeal. Lord Justice Carnwath agreed. The court concluded that neither proposed ground had a reasonable prospect of success.

1. Solicitors’ bills. Section 69 of the Solicitors Act 1974 is a protection for clients. Its purpose is to secure a proper opportunity to have bills assessed and individual items challenged. It is not intended to provide a technical route by which a client avoids total liability for fees where that opportunity was available.
2. The judge’s approach to combining the bills was permissible. The bills covered different periods of work concerning one transaction. The fact that they did not each purport to be part of one bill did not create a realistic ground of appeal. Nor did the fact that one bill was addressed to the trustees of the Bookham Trust. In the circumstances, Mr Nash had authorised bills to be sent to the trustees for payment from the trust, so delivery to them was delivery to the trust as his agent.
3. Acknowledgment. The surrounding events and correspondence demonstrated acknowledgment of the outstanding fees. The November meeting involved an oral acknowledgment and discussions about discharging the debt with paintings. Mr Salter’s letter was headed Outstanding Fees and was written with authority. Mr Cowan’s letter, also headed Outstanding fees, referred to the valuation of paintings and was copied to Mr Nash without objection.
4. Mr Nash’s own letter, although not headed Outstanding fees, was an acknowledgment when read with the claimant’s preceding letter. It dealt with arrangements for paintings to be used towards the outstanding liability. In any event, the authorised letters provided a sufficient written acknowledgment under section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980.

Order: Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused in [2002] EWCA Civ 1321.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Mr John Crowley QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge, gave judgment on 28 June 2002. He held that acknowledgments made the writ timely under section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980 and that the bills could be combined for section 69 of the Solicitors Act 1974.