Jugmohan Boodia & Anor. v Richard Slade T/A Richard Slade & Co Solicitors

A lower court is bound by a decision of the next tier of the judicial hierarchy, even if it considers that decision to be plainly wrong. Where that binding decision has determined the same preliminary issue, the lower court has no remaining issue to decide. A solicitor with a clear contractual right to deliver interim statute bills is not required, in the absence of a statutory or regulatory obligation, to explain the legal consequences of doing so. Further arguments based on consumer protection, Chamberlain bills, special circumstances, issue estoppel, waiver or procedural delay remained for later determination.

The claim concerned the detailed assessment of solicitors’ bills issued under a 2013 retainer. Earlier decisions had established that the retainer permitted interim statute bills, although the status of the individual bills had been contested through appeals to the High Court and Court of Appeal.

The paying parties later raised a preliminary issue concerning whether informed consent was required before the retainer could authorise interim statute bills. The receiving party argued that the issue had already been determined or was barred by issue estoppel, waiver and abuse of process. While the matter was pending, the High Court decided Erlam v Richard Slade & Company Plc. The central questions were whether the present court had already decided the preliminary issue and, if not, whether it was bound by Erlam.

1. The preliminary issue had not previously been decided. The court’s earlier decision on 22 June 2020 merely permitted the paying parties to raise the issue notwithstanding the earlier appeal concerning separate bills for profit costs and disbursements. It did not determine informed consent, issue estoppel, waiver or procedural objections.
2. The court was bound by Erlam v Richard Slade & Company Plc [2022] EWHC 325 (QB). That decision was made by a judge of the High Court at the next tier. The rule of precedent required it to be followed even if it had been plainly wrong. The court accepted that the decision was not wrong on the materials before the judge.
3. The applicable approach was that stated in Erlam. In the absence of a statutory or regulatory obligation to explain the legal consequences of serving an interim statute bill, a solicitor may rely on a clear contractual term reserving the right to deliver such bills. A term stating that the bills were detailed and final for the period covered was sufficient to explain their contractual character.
4. The argument based on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 was not determined. The court declined to speculate about whether Erlam might have been decided differently had that legislation been cited. Questions concerning consumer status, Chamberlain bills and special circumstances, together with the receiving party’s objections based on issue estoppel, waiver and procedure, remained to be addressed at a later hearing.
5. The preliminary issue was therefore disposed of by the binding decision in Erlam, and there was no longer anything for this court to decide on that issue.

The judgment records an extensive earlier procedural history, including successive appeals to the High Court and Court of Appeal and an unsuccessful application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. Those earlier decisions concerned whether separate bills for profit costs and disbursements could constitute interim statute bills.

This judgment did not determine the outstanding detailed assessment or the other consequential issues, which were reserved for a later hearing.