Haskell Elias v Wallace LLP

A series of invoices may constitute one Chamberlain bill, delivered when the final invoice is sent, even where earlier invoices are described as interim charges. The finality of an invoice may be established by the accompanying email and the request for payment of the balance.

A bill satisfies the information requirement where the bill and documents already held by the client enable the client reasonably to assess the charges and decide whether to seek detailed assessment. An electronic name may be an electronic signature where applied with authenticating intent. Applying an updating construction, an email may be a letter accompanying a bill. Delivery by email is effective where the client has indicated willingness to receive bills electronically, including through contractual terms or conduct.

The claimant sought delivery of a bill under section 68 of the Solicitors Act 1974. He had received six invoices from the defendant solicitors during a retainer relating to contentious proceedings. He argued that the invoices were not statute bills because they were insufficiently detailed, unsigned and delivered only by email.

The defendant contended that the invoices formed a Chamberlain bill, that the accompanying emails were signed letters, and that delivery by email was authorised by the parties’ terms and the claimant’s conduct. The central issues were whether the invoices formed a final statute bill, whether they complied with the statutory signing and information requirements, and whether they had been validly delivered.

1. Claim dismissed. The defendant had already delivered a final bill and was entitled to summary assessment of its costs in the sum of £15,159.25.
2. The invoices formed a single Chamberlain bill. The final invoice did not use the word final, but it covered the period to date and was described in the accompanying email as the final invoice. The email requested payment of the balance and stated that the papers would be released to the claimant’s new solicitors. Vlamaki v Sookias & Sookias was distinguishable because the accompanying communication here made the finality of the series clear.
3. A bill must contain sufficient information to enable the client to obtain advice about detailed assessment. The relevant inquiry is whether the bill identifies the ambit of the work and whether the client has sufficient information from the bill, accompanying documents or information already held to decide whether to seek taxation. The invoices, time records and the claimant’s knowledge of the retainer satisfied that requirement.
4. The printed name and logo on the invoices were not signatures because there was no evidence that the person creating the invoices purported to use the name to sign or was authorised to sign. The emails, however, contained electronic signatures within section 7(2) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000. Following Neocleous v Rees, automatic generation did not prevent authenticating intent.
5. An email is capable of being a letter for section 69(2A)(b) of the Solicitors Act 1974. An updating construction was appropriate because the statutory purpose was to convey that the bill had been authorised by the solicitor, and requiring a separate PDF letter would be absurd.
6. The claimant had indicated willingness to accept delivery by email under the terms of business. That conclusion was reinforced by his course of conduct, including communicating by email, accepting the terms electronically and responding to invoices sent by email.

Not stated in the judgment.