Signature Litigation LLP v Bidzina Ivanishvili

An interim statutory bill for the purposes of section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 must be complete, final and self-contained for the work or period it covers. It cannot be revisited by a later charge for further fees for that same work.

Accordingly, an invoice under a conditional fee arrangement for a discounted part of the ordinary fee is not an interim statutory bill where a further part of that fee may later become payable on satisfaction of a contingency. A separate bill for disbursements does not justify treating different portions of the same profit costs as separate subject matters.

The appellant solicitors acted as global co-ordinating counsel in litigation concerning the respondent’s assets. Their retainer provided for monthly invoices at 65% of their standard time-based fees. The remaining 35%, and possible uplift and success fees, depended on specified recoveries.

Between 2016 and 2022, the appellant rendered and the respondent paid 79 invoices totalling almost £13 million. Costs Judge Leonard declared that those invoices were not interim statutory bills, so the statutory restrictions on assessment in section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 did not apply: [2023] EWHC 2189 (SCCO).

The appeal turned on whether the discounted invoices were complete and final bills for the work they covered, notwithstanding the contingent entitlement to further fees for the same work.

Appeal dismissed unanimously. Coulson LJ gave the reasons. Nugee LJ and Lewison LJ concurred.

1. An interim statutory bill under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 must be complete, final and self-contained for its subject matter. Its finality cannot be qualified. A solicitor cannot later adjust or add to the charge for the work or period already covered by that bill.

2. The contractual 65% was not a freestanding payment for work distinct from the remaining 35%. Both were parts of the standard time-based fee for exactly the same work. The retainer merely gave the client a discount which might become temporary if the stipulated contingency occurred. Under section 58(2) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, the conditional element remained part of the solicitor’s fees for that work.

3. The invoices were therefore neither final nor complete. The same work and periods could later be revisited for the additional portion of the standard fee and potentially for uplift and success fees. They could not be interim statutory bills.

4. The court rejected the reliance on separate profit-cost and disbursement bills. The statute and the retainer in that context treated those as distinct categories. That did not permit separate statutory bills for a discounted portion and a contingent further portion of the same profit costs.

5. The first ground was dispositive. The court upheld the declaration that the 79 invoices were not interim statutory bills, with the result that the section 70 time limits did not bar the respondent’s challenge.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed the solicitors’ appeal unanimously and upheld the declaration that the invoices were not interim statutory bills: [2024] EWCA Civ 901.
• Senior Courts Costs Office — Costs Judge Leonard declared that the 79 invoices rendered under the retainers were not interim statutory bills: [2023] EWHC 2189 (SCCO).