A Kent-based firm has lost in its appeal in an order for assessment of its costs as administrators of a will.

The case in Daniel Kenig v Thomson Snell & Passmore LLP centres on the firm which was retained to administer the estate of Philippa Cunnick, who died in 2019. The firm’s original estimate for its fees was between £10,000 and £15,000, but the total final bill was £54,410.99 plus VAT and expenses.

Daniel Kenig, a beneficiary of the will, challenged the fees and applied for an assessment. The firm argued that in a case like this ‘it is not open to a beneficiary to challenge legal fees that have been paid from the proceeds of the estate’.

A costs judge ordered an assessment of the solicitors’ eight bills. The firm appealed.

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, with whom Lord Justice Nugee and Lord Justice Coulson agreed, dismissed the appeal.

He said the costs judge was correct to find the principles identified by the Court of Appeal in Tim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump LLP [2011], which the firm argued showed Kenig should be restricted on an application and assessment, should be distinguished and the relevant principles to be applied came from an 1867 authority In re Brown.

He added: ‘That conclusion is sufficient to dispose of the appeal unless by pure coincidence the points that may be taken by or on behalf of a beneficiary on an assessment under section 71(3) happen to be identical to those that apply under section 71(1) [of the Solicitors Act 1974]. I am not persuaded that they are identical.

‘To the contrary, the approach adopted by Lord Romilly MR in In re Brown permits a wider enquiry, going to quantum if appropriate as well as scope.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.