Costs recovery lawyers have failed in a court bid to have outstanding invoices of almost £700,000 assessed by the court. In Mehta v Howard Kennedy LLP, Costs Judge Whalan ruled that the firm’s interim bills were statutory bills and were not capable of being assessed under the Solicitors Act.

The claimant had been represented by checkmylegalfees.com, a firm which has previously targeted law firms who have represented personal injury clients in relatively low-value matters. This defeat came in a different scale of case, where the sums involved were much higher.

The court heard that claimant Vishal Mehta had retained London firm Howard Kennedy LLP in 2022 in connection with litigation brought against the Mehta family in respect of an alleged US$1bn fraud. The retainer was terminated by the firm after 11 months. 

Read more

In total, Howard Kennedy delivered 24 invoices adding up to more than £3.1m. The firm asserted in court that 13 invoices were paid by Mehta more than 12 months before the issue of this action, meaning he was not entitled to an assessment. The remaining invoices, it was claimed, remain unpaid.

Mehta submitted first that the invoices delivered were not interim statute bills but rather an entire bill delivered effectively with the last invoice. His new lawyers pointed to the references in the retainer to ‘value’ and ‘importance’ (of the case) and tried to qualify how complete and final they were.

Howard Kennedy said its terms of business comprised a clear statement of the contractual right to render statute bills, which were final bills for each relevant period. The judge ruled that the client had been provided with a clear breakdown of the charges and that the invoices had been drafted with ‘considerable detail’.

Mehta also submitted that the retainer was a contentious business agreement, as defined in the Solicitors Act 1974, and so the court was able to determine whether it was fair and reasonable. The judge ruled there was no such entitlement and no assessment was necessary.

The claimant finally relied on being able to show there were special circumstances to justify the challenge, citing the size of the bills which exceeded the initial estimates.

The judge said Mehta had not proved any matters needing further explanation or court scrutiny, adding: ‘The defendant delivered regular, itemised invoices that exhibited very detailed breakdowns of the profit costs and disbursements that the claimant had incurred during each relevant period. He was aware, in other words, of his ongoing, accumulating liability, and paid almost 80% of the invoices rendered.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.