David Brierley v Frank Otuo & Ors

A paper bill of costs complies with the fee-earner identification requirements where it gives each fee earner’s name, status, qualification and date of admission to the roll of solicitors. The bill need not separately state the number of post-qualification years where that information can be calculated from the admission date.

A paying party may raise a points-of-dispute argument that the fee earner’s actual experience is not commensurate with the hourly rate claimed. In a claim which is not a Part 7 multi-track claim, the receiving party may elect whether to present an electronic or paper bill.

The defendants applied for the claimant to redraw a bill of costs, alleging that it was miscertified and insufficiently transparent because it did not identify each fee earner’s name, status, qualification, post-qualification experience and hourly rate.

An amended bill was served after the application. It identified four solicitors, their status and qualification, and their dates of admission. The defendants also argued that an electronic bill was required because some work post-dated 6 April 2018. The issues were whether the amended paper bill complied with the Court of Appeal’s guidance in AKC v Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust and whether the receiving party could elect to serve a paper bill.

1. The application was dismissed. The amended bill did not require further redrafting or re-service.
2. Applying the Court of Appeal’s guidance in AKC v Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust [2022] EWCA Civ 630, a paper bill sufficiently identifies fee earners by stating their name, status, qualification and date of admission to the roll. The admission date enables post-qualification experience to be calculated, so the bill need not separately state the number of years.
3. It remains open to the paying party to raise, in points of dispute, an argument that the fee earner’s actual post-qualification experience is not commensurate with the hourly rate claimed.
4. The argument that the paper bill should have been electronic was not properly articulated in the application. Nevertheless, as a matter of principle, a wrong bill format is better addressed before the detailed assessment hearing begins.
5. Under paragraph 5.1(a) of the practice direction to rule 47 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, where the underlying litigation was not a Part 7 multi-track claim, the receiving party could elect to present an electronic or paper bill. The claimant had validly elected to serve a paper bill.
6. The costs of the application were reserved to the conclusion of the detailed assessment, with a possible standalone remote hearing if the bill was compromised.