Henry Onwubiko t/a Grayfield Solicitors v Mohammed Yasein Yousaf & Anor

On a solicitor-and-client assessment, costs must be reasonable, properly incurred and supported by clear contractual information. A solicitor relying on informed client approval bears the overall burden of proving that approval. Ambiguous terms are construed against the solicitor who drafted them. Work performed by a supervised paralegal may not be charged at an equivalent Grade A solicitor rate without informed approval, particularly where the rate would not be recoverable on a party-and-party assessment. The court may scrutinise claimed work on the indemnity basis and disallow costs that were unreasonable or not shown to have been incurred. Where the solicitor recovers less than one fifth of the amount claimed, the client may recover the costs of the assessment.

The claimant solicitor brought Solicitors Act assessment proceedings against the first defendant, whose matter had been conducted principally by the second defendant, a paralegal formerly employed by the claimant. The assessment concerned invoices arising from earlier Mortgage Express proceedings. A provisional assessment was undertaken so that a County Court conducting related fact-finding proceedings could use it.

The court considered disputes about VAT, hourly rates, the extent of partner work, duplicated and wasted work, a possible fixed-fee agreement, and entitlement to assessment costs. The first defendant was largely uncontactable and did not challenge the provisional assessment within the relevant period.

1. Provisional assessment. The court allowed £28,895 in costs plus £5,797 VAT, producing a total of £34,692. The amount claimed was £84,290. The first defendant was awarded the costs of the assessment on the indemnity basis.
2. VAT and contractual terms. The claimant’s valid VAT number, together with the absence of a challenge and the first defendant’s express offers of VAT on several items, justified allowing VAT, subject to recalculation following reductions. The ambiguous client care letter was construed against its draftsman.
3. Informed approval and hourly rates. Applying Nicky Herbert v HH Law Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 527, the solicitor retained the overall burden of proving informed approval. The evidential burden would move only after evidence of informed consent had been produced. The claimant failed to establish informed approval of a £250 hourly rate for the paralegal. £180 per hour, within the client care letter and equivalent to a Grade B rate, was allowed.
4. Reasonableness and evidence. Partner time was substantially reduced or disallowed. The court found no doubt that the costs were unreasonable and grave doubt that much of the claimed partner time had been incurred. Reading the entire bundle and extensive preparation by both the paralegal and supervising partner was unreasonable even on the indemnity basis.
5. Assessment costs and related issues. The claimant had not beaten the one-fifth threshold under the Solicitors Act 1974, so its assessment costs were disallowed. Whether a fixed-fee agreement existed, and whether the second defendant was authorised to conduct litigation, were matters for the County Court in the related fact-finding proceedings.