Guiliano Davide Stella v Hodge Jones & Allan LLP

Periodic invoices are not interim statute bills merely because they are described as bills or are paid without protest. The retainer must, expressly or by necessary implication, authorise each invoice to operate as a complete bill of costs. Where the retainer provides for interim payments on account followed by a final bill, that construction prevails and any fundamental ambiguity is resolved against the solicitor.

Invoices forming part of a continuing series are treated as one Chamberlain bill where they do not become final until the last invoice. Time for seeking detailed assessment then runs from delivery of the final bill. Special circumstances under the Solicitors Act 1974 are assessed as a value judgment against the ordinary case. They may arise from costs or charging circumstances calling for explanation and need not be exceptional.

The claimant retained the defendant solicitors in 2017. Between October 2017 and November 2021, the defendant delivered 34 invoices totalling £225,697.60, of which £198,635 was paid.

A Part 8 claim issued in April 2022 sought detailed assessment of eight invoices delivered in 2021. In May 2023 the claimant applied to bring a further 26 invoices within the proceedings. The issues included whether the invoices were interim statute bills or payments on account, whether special circumstances existed under the Solicitors Act 1974, and whether the court should order assessment.

1. Procedure. The application was treated as an application to amend the Part 8 statement of case. Although the procedure was unorthodox, the claimant had indicated from the outset that the wider billing was challenged and the defendant had understood that position. The application was therefore permitted.
2. Character of the invoices. The retainer, read as a whole, provided for regular interim bills in the context of requests for further payments on account, followed by a final bill after completion. The invoices were therefore interim payments on account and not interim statute bills. Any fundamental ambiguity would in any event be resolved against the solicitor, following Vlamaki v Sookias and Sookias.
3. The defendant could not establish an implied agreement that the invoices were interim statute bills. That conclusion was inconsistent with the express contractual arrangement. Nor could payment without protest establish such an agreement where the retainer contemplated that the invoices were not final. The invoices consequently formed a continuing Chamberlain bill, and time under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 began on delivery of the final invoice on 18 November 2021.
4. Special circumstances. The claimant demonstrated special circumstances under section 70(4). The adequacy of the estimates and the possible application of section 74(3) raised issues requiring explanation and distinguished the case from the run of the mill case. The circumstances were considered cumulatively. Special circumstances need not be exceptional.
5. Discretion and order. A detailed assessment of the remaining 26 invoices was ordered without additional terms. The court did not determine the claimant’s novel common-law assessment argument because it was unnecessary to do so.