Carter-Ruck (A Firm) v Mireskandari

Relief from the time limit for appealing is discretionary. The court must consider all the circumstances, including promptness, the explanation for default, compliance with orders, responsibility for the failure, prejudice, finality and the interests of justice. Long delay, a deliberate decision not to appeal, inadequate evidence and consequential steps taken in reliance on finality may outweigh the merits of the proposed appeal.

A gross-sum solicitor’s bill is not invalid merely because its narrative is sparse. The court must consider the bill together with other information reasonably available to the client. An experienced client who understood the work, costs regime and right to taxation could not use technical inadequacy opportunistically to avoid liability. A payment on account and a sanction for non-payment were also permissible where liability had been established and the debtor provided no proper evidence of inability to pay.

A firm of solicitors claimed £118,180.05 in unpaid professional fees from its former client, an experienced litigation solicitor. A Master granted summary judgment, ordered detailed assessment and directed payment of £40,000 on account, with judgment for the full fees if payment was not made. The defendant did not appeal that order within time.

The defendant later sought an extension of time and permission to appeal the October order, and appealed a subsequent order refusing to extend time for payment. The issues included the adequacy of the gross-sum bill, the propriety of the payment-on-account order, the effect of a freezing order, and the exercise of discretion under CPR 3.9.

1. Extension of time. The application to extend time to appeal Master Leslie’s October Order was refused. Applying CPR 3.9, the court gave substantial weight to finality, the more-than-nine-month delay, the defendant’s conscious decision not to appeal, the absence of a satisfactory explanation, his repeated failure to provide proper evidence, and the prejudice caused by detailed assessment and bankruptcy proceedings undertaken in reliance on finality. The possible merits of the proposed appeal did not justify reopening the claim.
2. Prospects of the proposed appeal. The court nevertheless considered the merits and concluded that permission would have been refused in any event. Under the approach in Garry v Gwillim [2002] 1 WLR 3095, the adequacy of a gross-sum bill depends on the information in the bill and on other information available to the client. The sparse descriptions identified the work, period and disbursements. The defendant’s experience, knowledge of the costs regime, communications with the solicitors and access to further information meant that he had sufficient information to decide whether to seek taxation. The proposed defence was therefore unmeritorious.
3. The Master was entitled to order £40,000 on account after summary judgment. It was reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of the fees would be recoverable. The defendant asserted that he had assets exceeding the payment but produced no proper evidence that the freezing order made payment impossible. The severe consequence attached to non-payment was justified by the Master’s lack of confidence that payment would otherwise be made, while permission to apply for variation provided protection against genuine difficulty.
4. November Order. The appeal against the refusal to extend time for payment was dismissed. The defendant supplied no evidence of the value of his assets, attempts to obtain funds, likely timing of the freezing-order proceedings or other means of raising the money. The Master was entitled to conclude that there was no real prospect of satisfactory compliance.
5. The case was to be re-listed to determine the outstanding application for permission to appeal Master Campbell’s Order and any consequential applications.

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): the court refused an extension of time and permission to appeal Master Leslie’s October Order, dismissed the appeal against Master Leslie’s November Order, and directed that the remaining application concerning Master Campbell’s Order be re-listed.