Jugmohan Boodia & Anor v Richard John Slade

A clear contractual term may authorise a solicitor to render interim statutory bills that are final for the relevant period. The solicitor need not separately explain the statutory time limits or other legal consequences of such bills unless a statutory or regulatory obligation requires it.

Professional and regulatory duties are not automatically implied contractual terms. An implied term requires necessity, business efficacy or obviousness, and cannot contradict an express term. Consumer-protection arguments raised very late in detailed assessment proceedings may engage issue estoppel, waiver and abuse of process, but permission to appeal should be granted where those procedural questions require fuller examination.

The appellants were former clients of the respondent solicitor. They challenged bills delivered during a long-running retainer and sought detailed assessment under Solicitors Act 1974, section 70.

Earlier proceedings established that the retainer permitted interim statutory bills and that the invoices were such bills. On remission, the appellants argued that the bills were invalid because they had not given informed consent and that consumer-protection legislation rendered the retainer term ineffective. The Costs Judge rejected the informed-consent argument and later barred the consumer-protection arguments as too late.

The appeal concerned whether informed consent or an implied contractual term was required, and whether permission should be granted to challenge the procedural bar imposed on the consumer-protection arguments.

1. Informed consent. The appeal against the finding that informed consent was unnecessary was dismissed. A solicitor may render interim statutory bills where the retainer contains clear wording showing a contractual intention that the bills are final for the relevant stage or period. The term in this retainer was sufficiently clear.
2. The hardship identified in authorities concerning clients being required to challenge their solicitor during ongoing litigation is especially relevant where consent is ambiguous, arises from a natural break, or is based on conduct or acquiescence. It does not justify rewriting a clear express term.
3. Neither the Solicitors Act 1974 nor the applicable professional rules imposed an obligation to explain the full legal consequences of interim statutory bills. The reasoning in Richard Slade & Co v Erlam and Ivanishvili v Signature Litigation LLP was persuasive and was followed. Dean Menzies v Oakwood Solicitors Ltd was consistent with that approach.
4. The proposed implied term requiring compliance with professional and consumer-protection requirements was rejected. Regulatory and statutory duties have their own consequences and are not thereby incorporated into the retainer. The stringent tests of necessity, business efficacy and obviousness were not satisfied, and the proposed term would be inconsistent with the express bargain and potentially operate as a condition precedent to recovery.
5. The Respondent’s Notice based on issue estoppel, waiver and Henderson v Henderson was not determined because it was unnecessary.
6. Permission to appeal was granted on whether the consumer-protection arguments were correctly barred by issue estoppel, waiver and abuse of process. The court did not determine the substantive consumer-protection issues. A fuller appeal was required, with more focused written materials and directions for a further hearing.

• High Court (King's Bench Division): appeal from the Costs Judge’s decisions dated 15 June 2022 and 18 May 2023. The informed-consent appeal was dismissed. Permission to appeal was granted on the procedural bar affecting the consumer-protection arguments.
• Court of Appeal: earlier proceedings established that the invoices were valid statutory bills, while the contractual entitlement issue was not pursued further.