header-logo header-logo

Civil Litigation

13 December 2007
Issue: 7301 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Withers LLP [2007] EWHC 2733 (Ch), [2007] All ER (D) 385 (Nov)

Solicitors sought to recover costs from their client substantially in excess of the amount shown in the original estimate (the trial having lasted considerably longer than expected). 

HELD The contractual position between solicitor and client is governed by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, s 15 entitling the solicitor to reasonable remuneration for services provided. A solicitor is not bound by the terms of an estimate. However, where a solicitor’s fees are to be subjected to a detailed assessment, any estimate of costs given to the client is a factor that may be taken into consideration as a yardstick for determining what is reasonable.

Even so, where there is a satisfactory explanation for the difference between the estimate and the amount billed, the estimate might cease to be useful as a yardstick by which to measure reasonableness.

Any reliance placed upon the estimate by the client is also a factor that may be taken into consideration when determining what is reasonable for the client to pay. Because an estimate is not a fixed or maximum price, even where a client relies on the estimate, it will often be the case that the client appreciates that the final bill may be somewhat above the estimate. If the final bill is a little above the estimate then a court might routinely hold that the excess does not prevent it being reasonable for the client to be expected to pay the full bill.

Conversely, if the final bill is significantly above the estimate, a court might routinely feel that the bill had increased by too much so that it was no longer reasonable to expect the client to pay all of it. The court may then be required to exercise its judgment as to what figure could properly be added to the estimate so as not to exceed the sum which it would be reasonable to expect the client to pay.

Issue: 7301 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll