A client who tried to argue that his solicitor’s bills were not valid because they were emailed has failed in his High Court challenge.

Haskell Elias had yet to pay Mayfair firm Wallace LLP £27,168 in outstanding fees and tried to argue that the six invoices issued to him were not statute bills because they were not signed, the emails that accompanied them were not letters and that they were not delivered to him.

Following a two-hour hearing, Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker dismissed the claim. He said he would set out his reasons in writing given that the case had raised novel issues.

In Elias v Wallace LLP published today, the judge said each of the invoices was accompanied by time records and was sent as an attachment to an email, describing the work done, the time spent, the fee earner involved and the hourly rate applied.

‘That, it seems to me, provided sufficient information to the client to enable him to form a view as to the reasonableness of the charges,’ he added.

It was not in issue that the invoices did not have a ‘wet ink’ signature and existed only as an electronic file, the judge said. Each bore the name ‘Wallace’, the firm’s logo and contact details. The judge said that whoever created the invoice included a template with the name and address, and there was no evidence that they were authorised to sign it. But with each invoice concluding with the name and title of one of the Wallace partners, the judge said the email footer was ‘clearly applied with authenticating intent’.

The judge said that bills could be authorised through a signature on the bill or on the communication accompanying it. Accordingly, an email was a letter for the purposes of the Solicitors Act. It was noted that the firm’s terms of business had included a clause through which the client agreed to be served formal notices and documents by email.

‘It seems to me that the clear intention is that the solicitor is permitted to send documents by email, including formal documents, and that must include invoices,’ added the judge. ‘It would be absurd if the solicitor were permitted to serve a claim form in respect of unpaid fees by email but not the bill on which the claim was based.’

The court ruled that the bill was properly delivered and that Elias should also pay the firm’s costs of £15,159.

Reflecting on the judgment, Martyn Griffiths from Gatehouse Chambers, who represented the firm, said the number of disputes about costs had ‘ballooned’ in recent years but that this case could give some clarity and reassurance to solicitors.

‘It is likely that solicitors have sent out invoices by email fully intending that the invoices would be paid by clients without turning their mind to the technicalities of the act,’ said Griffiths. ‘Such solicitors will be relieved that their invoices will not be deprived the status of a statute bill because the commentary that they sent with their invoice was in the body of an email and not an attached letter.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.