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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll