Singh v Sinel

A court assessing counsel’s fees on a summary basis may make a broad-brush assessment instead of ordering a detailed inquiry where the evidence permits a fair estimate and a line-by-line exercise would be disproportionate. The judge must engage with the fee material and the parties’ competing cases. A figure based only on general experience, while ignoring detailed bills, is impermissible.

Prior acquiescence in estimates of time is a relevant factor, but the court must still assess reasonableness. On summary judgment, the court may quantify the sum for which a defence has no real prospect of success.

An English barrister claimed unpaid fee notes from a Jersey advocate who had instructed him in litigation concerning evidence sought by the Attorney General of Jersey. The High Court held that no contract existed between the parties but awarded £102,307.20 on a quantum meruit basis, using the agreed hourly rate and a broad assessment of the disputed hours.

On appeal, the advocate argued that the judge lacked sufficient material to assess quantum, had selected 90 per cent of the disputed fees without adequate reasons, and had not applied the summary-judgment procedure. The central questions were whether the evidence supported the assessment and whether the order was a proper summary judgment.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal, in the judgment of Jackson LJ with which Floyd LJ and Macur LJ agreed, held that the judge had sufficient material to assess the reasonable remuneration due. The agreed hourly rate and the number of hours actually worked were undisputed. The judge had the fee notes, schedules, correspondence, estimates, a comparison schedule, the points of dispute and full argument from both sides.
2. Prior acquiescence in estimated periods of work was a relevant factor, although it did not itself establish that the time claimed was reasonable. The defendant’s concession at first instance that the hours had been worked could not be withdrawn on appeal. Nor could additional bundles, which had not been before the judge, be used to reassess the hours.
3. The judge had carried out a permissible broad-brush assessment. He was not required to examine every fee note item by item where a detailed inquiry would be disproportionately costly and time-consuming. His conclusion was based on the parties’ competing figures and was not a figure plucked from the air. The approach was distinguished from that criticised in 1-800 Flowers Inc v Phonenames Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 721, where detailed bills had been ignored and costs fixed by general experience. The court accepted the principles arising from that decision.
4. The order was properly made under Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The judge had decided that the defendant had no real prospect of defending liability for the quantified amount and had therefore given summary judgment. The reference to 2003 in the lower judgment concerning the amendment of the overriding objective was a slip; the relevant amendment occurred in 2013. No ground existed to reverse or revise the judgment.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the summary judgment and the broad assessment of the fees. [2016] EWCA Civ 387.
2. High Court of Justice, Chancery Division: His Honour Judge Simon Barker QC held that there was no contract between the parties but awarded £102,307.20 on a quantum meruit basis by summary judgment.