Clare Griffin v Kleyman & Co Solicitors Ltd

A finalised and perfected judgment should be reopened only in very limited circumstances. The overriding objective is underwritten by the principle of finality in litigation. A party cannot reopen an evidential issue after judgment where the material could have been raised at the original hearing and the issue was immaterial to the decision. The court’s jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal or extend time ends when the applicable procedural period expires, subject to any specific rule providing otherwise. CPR 44.11 does not apply to an assessment between solicitor and client.

The claimant sought an extension of time to seek permission to appeal from an earlier judgment concerning the detailed assessment of solicitors’ bills. She also sought production of an email concerning delivery of an August 2020 bill and an opportunity to reopen the court’s finding about its delivery date.

The court had previously concluded that the delivery dispute was immaterial to whether the defendant’s recoverable costs should be limited by estimates. The present issues were whether the court retained jurisdiction to extend time or grant permission to appeal, whether the earlier finding could be reopened while the assessment continued, and whether the alleged evidence could support a future application under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rule 44.11.

1. Application dismissed. The court’s jurisdiction to entertain an application for permission to appeal or an extension of time had ended on 30 July 2024. That conclusion followed from Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rules 52.3(2)(a) and 52.12(2)(a), subject to the possible application of rule 47.14(7), which did not require determination.
2. The court considered the possibility that the continuing solicitor-client assessment was analogous to a case in which judgment had been delivered but the order had not been sealed. Even on that assumption, reconsideration had to serve justice in accordance with the overriding objective in rule 1.1, while respecting the fundamental principle of finality in litigation.
3. The claimant’s proposed evidence and challenges could have been raised before or at the January 2024 hearing. The delivery-date dispute had no bearing on the material conclusions in the earlier judgment. The August bill did not take costs beyond the relevant estimate; the later September bill did. The court had already found that the defendant should have warned the claimant by the end of August that the estimate would be substantially exceeded.
4. The court rejected the contention that the defendant’s solicitor had misled the court. Her evidence was understood as an assertion based on familiarity with the firm’s billing practices, rather than personal knowledge of each delivery. The additional evidence was not conclusive and added no real value.
5. Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rule 44.11 had no application to an assessment between solicitor and client. Possible complaints to the Legal Ombudsman or the Solicitors Regulation Authority were matters for those bodies.

No appellate history is stated in the judgment. The application concerned an attempt to revisit an earlier judgment in the continuing detailed assessment proceedings.