An appeal against an order of costs against a former client of defamation firm Schillings International has been dismissed after the High Court found the judge’s approach could not be faulted.
Emmanouil Spanakis instructed Shillings to act in proceedings for defamation and unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. Following a costs order in 2023 in which Shillings’ bill was assessed at £19,141.80 including VAT but not interest, Spanakis was required to pay the firm £18,000. Spanakis was also ordered to pay defendant costs of £24,300.
Appealing the order, Spanakis argued that the firm was under a contractual obligation to notify him before its estimate was exceeded and should not have done any further work until approved.
But in Emmanouil Spanakis v Schillings International LLP, Mrs Justice Tipples said the obligation on the firm, according to the Standard Terms of Business document, was ‘that they shall “endeavour” to notify the client’ if the estimate was likely to be exceeded.
Read more
The judgment said: ‘The obligation is no more than that, and the Standard Terms of Business do not provide that, if the respondent fails to tell a client in advance that the estimate is likely to be exceeded, then any resulting addition incurred to the client’s costs will be irrecoverable.
‘The judge made findings of fact that when the appellant was put on notice that the costs were prima facie overrunning, he instructed them to continue working, and raised no specific objection to this. The appellant wanted the respondent to do the work and, in particular, he wanted the respondent, as a well-known name in the area of defamation law, to do the work.’
Mrs Justice Tipples said: ‘The judge’s approach to the estimate and the associated contractual obligations cannot be faulted, and there is no basis for this court on appeal to interfere with his findings of facts.’
