EMERY PLANNING PARTNERSHIP LIMITED v GARIE BEVAN

In a contractual debt claim, a defendant who does not expressly admit the amount claimed is taken under CPR 16.5(4) to require proof of that amount. The claimant must therefore prove quantum to the civil standard, even where the defence contains no particularised challenge. The evidence required depends on the circumstances. For invoices calculated by reference to hours, rates, fee-earner levels and possible uplifts, broad descriptions may be insufficient where the total is substantially above the estimate. A court may use its case-management powers to postpone assessment and enter judgment for a sum to be determined, but it is not generally required to do so, particularly where the claimant did not seek that course at trial. Appellate courts should respect the trial judge’s case-management discretion.

The claimant appealed from the County Court at Manchester, where HHJ Sephton QC dismissed its claim for £49,753.66 in unpaid professional-service invoices. The judge rejected the defendant’s allegations of negligence and his contention that no binding contract existed, but held that the claimant had failed to prove the quantum of the sums invoiced.

The invoices were calculated under contractual terms by reference to time spent, hourly rates, fee-earner status and possible uplifts. The appeal concerned whether the claimant had discharged the burden of proving the debt, whether the court could have entered judgment for a sum to be determined later, and whether the judge was entitled to dismiss the claim.

1. Appeal and proof of quantum. The appeal was dismissed except for £1,650 shown by a counsel’s fee note in the trial bundle, for which judgment was entered with interest. CPR 16.5(4) applied because this was a money claim and the defendant had not expressly admitted that the invoice amounts were due. The claimant therefore retained the burden of proving quantum to the civil standard.

2. The trial judge was entitled to require evidence identifying who performed the work, when it was performed, how long it took, whether an uplift was charged, and the circumstances justifying any uplift. The descriptions on the invoices were insufficient in circumstances where the final bill was approximately £80,000 against an original estimate of £16,500. The nature and extent of evidence required in a debt claim is fact-sensitive and the judgment established no general rule applicable to every invoices case.

3. The judge correctly rejected most of the claim for counsel’s fees because the relevant fee notes were absent from the trial bundle. The fee note for £1,650 was different because it was available, had been drawn to the judge’s attention, and no issue remained concerning the quality of the work or the defendant’s liability to pay it.

4. The court’s case-management powers were sufficiently flexible to permit judgment for a sum to be determined later, as illustrated by Devonshires Solicitors LLP v Khaled Elbishlawi, Lam Developments Ltd [2021] EWHC 173 (Comm). However, the claimant had not sought that course at trial despite a clear judicial indication of concern about the evidence. The decision whether to postpone assessment involved a broad discretion. The appellate court could intervene only if the decision fell outside the range reasonably open to the judge. The judge was not obliged to give the claimant a further opportunity to prove its case, having regard to expedition, expense and proportionate use of court resources.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): On appeal from the County Court at Manchester, the appeal was dismissed except that judgment was entered for £1,650 with interest in respect of the counsel’s fee note.