Devonshires Solicitors LLP v Elbishlawi & Anor

Summary judgment may be given on a solicitor’s claim for fees where the client has no realistic defence. A bill complying with section 69 of the Solicitors Act 1974 is presumed to comply with the Act unless the client squarely puts that issue in dispute and adduces an evidential basis for it. The expiry of the statutory period for assessment does not prevent a client from challenging the reasonableness of the fees at common law. Where detailed time and rate information permits specific challenges, summary judgment may be entered unless particular items are challenged. Where the bill is insufficiently broken down and its overall reasonableness is challenged, judgment may be entered subject to detailed assessment of the whole bill.

Devonshires Solicitors LLP sought summary judgment against former clients, Khaled Elbishlawi and LAM Developments Ltd, for six unpaid invoices arising from legal work concerning property, planning, administration and related proceedings. The defendants disputed which party was liable, alleged failures to provide information, advanced set-off claims, and contended that most invoices were not statute bills or remained open to challenge.

The court considered whether the pleaded defences had a realistic prospect of success and, in particular, whether summary judgment should be unconditional or subject to detailed assessment of the fees.

1. Summary judgment test. Under CPR 24.2, summary judgment is appropriate where the defendant has no real or realistic prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue and there is no other compelling reason for trial. The defendants’ alleged implied information term, Guernsey costs set-off, conflict-of-interest set-off, English costs set-off and accounting points had no realistic prospect of success on the evidence and pleadings.
2. Statute bills. The invoices were delivered in accordance with sections 69(2A) and 69(2C) of the Solicitors Act 1974. They were therefore presumed under section 69(2E) to comply with the Act. The defendants had not pleaded or evidenced the matters required to put in issue whether the bills were statute bills, including whether the invoices contained insufficient narrative or whether information already available to them was inadequate. The first argument was rejected: Ralph Hulme Gary v Gwillim [2002] EWCA Civ 1500.
3. Challenge to reasonableness. Even if the invoices were statute bills and the 12-month period in section 70(3) had expired, the defendants could still challenge the reasonableness of the fees. The solicitor’s claim was for a reasonable sum, subject to the retainer and the Act, and the solicitor bore the burden of showing reasonableness: Turner v Palomo [2000] 1 WLR 37.
4. Form of order. Where invoices 263739 and 253173 contained detailed breakdowns, including time spent, and no specific items were challenged, summary judgment was entered for the invoiced sums against LAM. For invoices 249442, 251328 and 252592 against LAM, and invoice 267076 against Mr Elbishlawi, the appropriate order was summary judgment for sums to be determined by a costs judge on detailed assessment. Any work performed before Devonshires existed, when the predecessor Firm was the relevant practice, had to be excluded from invoice 249442.