Aaron Hensley v Morris Law Limited

A solicitor must provide a complete statute bill covering the fees, charges and disbursements due for the business undertaken. A bill limited to the success fee deducted from damages is insufficient where it omits the base charges, disbursements and other information required to understand the total account.

Under section 68 of the Solicitors Act 1974, the client’s entitlement to seek delivery of a compliant bill does not depend on the solicitor’s view of whether an assessment under section 70 would succeed, or whether the client would benefit from one. The section 68 delivery procedure is distinct from section 70 assessment proceedings. Observations concerning disproportionate litigation costs in Belsner and Karatysz concerned section 70 applications and did not govern a section 68 application.

The claimant applied under section 68 of the Solicitors Act 1974 for delivery of a statute bill by the defendant solicitors. The defendant had provided an invoice dated 22 September 2022 seeking £3,750 plus VAT, described as a 25 per cent success fee calculated by reference to £18,000 under a no-win, no-fee agreement.

The defendant argued that the claimant had sufficient information about the success fee and the work undertaken, and that further proceedings were unnecessary. The central issues were whether the invoice was a compliant statute bill and whether the client’s potential prospects in any section 70 assessment affected the section 68 application.

1. Application granted. The claimant was entitled to delivery of a final statute bill. The defendant’s September 2022 invoice was not compliant because it dealt only with the success fee deduction and did not provide a complete account of the charges and disbursements.
2. The statutory requirement for a compliant bill derives from the Solicitors Act 1974, while the detailed content requirements have been developed through case law. A statute bill must be complete. It need not be contained in one document if the documents clearly form parts of one bill. Interim bills may in appropriate circumstances be assessed with a final bill, and fees and disbursements may be contained in separate documents.
3. In Cobbett and Ors v Wood [1908] 2 KB 420, the Court of Appeal described the required account as a complete bill of the fees, charges and disbursements due for the business. That approach remained applicable. The guidance in Karatysz v SGI Legal LLP [2022] EWCA Civ 1388, concerning the charges, disbursements, payments, outstanding balance and amount demanded, was consistent with the earlier law.
4. The solicitor could not resist delivery by arguing that the client had enough information to decide whether to seek an assessment, or that an assessment would fail. Section 68 delivery is a necessary means by which a client obtains a compliant bill. It is not for the solicitor to decide whether the client has grounds for a section 70 assessment.
5. The observations in Belsner v Cam Legal Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1387 and Karatysz about expensive High Court litigation concerned section 70 proceedings, not section 68 applications. The claimant was therefore entitled to the costs of the application under CPR 44.2.