LISA JONES v RICHARD SLADE AND COMPANY LTD

The statutory costs-assessment jurisdiction under Solicitors Act 1974, section 70, extends to disputes that must be resolved before assessment, including whether an agreement precludes assessment and whether particular costs were reasonably incurred. It does not extend to a freestanding equitable jurisdiction to rescind or set aside an agreement for undue influence, illegitimate pressure or economic duress. The court must identify what the statute positively permits; the absence of an express exclusion is insufficient. Specific statutory powers to set aside non-contentious and contentious business agreements reinforce that limitation.

A client sought assessment of her solicitors’ bills under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The solicitors contended that the parties had reached a binding compromise which precluded, or governed, assessment. The client pleaded that the agreement had been procured by unconscionable conduct, illegitimate pressure and economic duress and asked that it be set aside.

The Senior Courts Costs Office Costs Judge refused the solicitors’ strike-out application, holding that the issues and remedy fell within the costs court’s jurisdiction. The solicitors appealed to the High Court. The central issue was whether section 70 proceedings permitted the court to set aside the agreement.

1. Appeal allowed. The court assessing costs under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 has no jurisdiction to set aside the agreement.
2. The jurisdiction is wholly statutory. Its scope is determined by what the statute positively permits. Once an assessment order is made, the costs judge assesses the bill, the costs of assessment and the amount due. The jurisdiction includes issues that are necessary to decide whether assessment should proceed or how particular costs should be assessed.
3. Accordingly, the court may determine whether an agreement precludes assessment, whether it mandates assessment at an agreed sum, and whether it is a contentious business agreement. A discrete issue of negligence, fiduciary breach or pressure may be relevant where it bears directly on whether particular costs were reasonably incurred. Generalised or wholesale allegations that do not bear on the assessment fall outside section 70.
4. The court may set aside a contentious business agreement if it is unfair or unreasonable, but that power arises under section 61(2)(b), not section 70. The specific powers in sections 57(2) and 61(2)(b) support the conclusion that section 70 contains no general power to rescind agreements.
5. The pleaded request to set aside the agreement was a freestanding equitable enquiry. It was not transformed into an assessment issue merely because setting aside the agreement would remove an obstacle to assessment. The court therefore allowed the appeal.

1. Senior Courts Costs Office: Costs Judge Rowley refused the appellant solicitors’ application to strike out the client’s contention that the agreement should be set aside.
2. High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): On appeal, Mr Justice Johnson held that section 70 did not confer jurisdiction to set aside the agreement and allowed the appeal.