Andrew Sweeney v Wise Solicitors Limited

For a client’s application to assess solicitors’ costs under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974, the client need show only that a bill was delivered. The signature and prescribed delivery requirements in section 69 govern proceedings brought by solicitors to recover costs. An invoice may constitute a delivered final bill where, viewed objectively with accompanying correspondence, it forms part of a demand for payment. Payment requires the client’s agreement that money received be applied towards the bill; mere acquiescence is insufficient. Once a bill has been paid and the statutory period has expired, assessment requires special circumstances. Prompt initial enquiries, financial pressure, lack of detailed explanation of the time limit and absence of substantial prejudice did not, on the facts, amount to special circumstances.

The claimant instructed the defendant solicitors in a personal injury claim under a conditional fee agreement. After settlement, the defendant sent him two invoices by email, together with correspondence explaining deductions from the damages and an authority for payment. The claimant signed the authority and the deductions were made.

The claimant later issued a Part 8 claim seeking assessment of the invoices under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The defendant applied to strike out the claim, arguing that the invoices were not validly signed or delivered and, alternatively, that the claimant could not proceed without showing special circumstances. The issues were whether the invoices had been delivered, whether they had been paid, and whether special circumstances existed.

1. The defendant’s application succeeded. The claimant’s application for assessment under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 was dismissed.

2. Section 69 concerns a solicitor’s ability to bring proceedings to recover costs. Its formal requirements concerning signature and delivery do not govern a client’s application under section 70. A client in possession of invoices ostensibly suitable for assessment need establish delivery; the absence of a solicitor’s signature was immaterial.

3. Section 70 is not prescriptive about the method of delivery. The invoices were intentionally provided to the claimant, rather than being draft documents copied from a file. They were sent with an explanatory letter and were intended to establish the amount to be deducted from the damages. They therefore formed part of a demand for payment and constituted delivered final bills.

4. Payment depended on whether the claimant agreed that money received would be applied towards the solicitors’ bills. The signed authority expressly recorded his understanding and consent to the deductions. The contemporaneous communications showed dissatisfaction with the amount, but did not establish illegitimate pressure or invalidate the authority. The invoices were paid on 26 July 2021.

5. Because the claim was brought after the period in section 70(1), and the bills had been paid, section 70(3)(c) required special circumstances. None existed. The claimant’s initial contact with a legal marketing company, financial difficulties, failure to understand the reference to taxation, and the absence of significant prejudice did not justify assessment. The wording drawing attention to remedies under the Act was adequate, and the claimant could have sought further information.