Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust v AKC [2021] EWHC 2607 (QB) concerned a costs bill sent by Irwin Mitchell, which represented the patient in a clinical negligence case. Keoghs, which acted for the NHS Trust, argued the bill should be struck out as it did not comply with the Civil Procedure Rules.
Keoghs contended three grounds of non-compliance, the first being that the bill was not properly certified because the signatory was not identifiable. Second, the paper bill did not properly give the name and status of each fee earner or identify the work done by each one. Third, the electronic bill did not properly give the name, grade and dates of each fee earner or identify the work they did.
Allowing the appeal on all three grounds, Mrs Justice Steyn noted: ‘It is common ground before me that the signature gives no clue as to the name of the signatory.’
Steyn J held the bill of costs had not been certified by an identified individual and so was not compliant.
‘Moreover, while identifying the signatory as an unnamed solicitor of a specified firm would be inadequate, in this case it is not even clear that the bill of costs has been certified by a solicitor,’ she said.
‘Rather, the court has been asked to presume that it must have been a solicitor because that is what the rules require.’
She rejected Irwin Mitchell’s submission that the remedy sought was Draconian, stating: ‘The only amendment required is to provide a fresh signed certificate, clearly identifying the solicitor who is the signatory.
‘It will take very little effort to make such an amendment. Indeed, given how little effort or cost it would have taken to have provided the name of the signatory for which the appellant asked in November 2019, I confess to some astonishment that the respondent chose instead to withhold the information and argue the point.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
