A solicitor is not personally liable for fees, disbursements and expenses incurred while acting as a Court of Protection-appointed deputy, a judge has found.

Catherine Joan Brassington v Knights Professional Services Limited discloses that Catherine Brassington was a partner at Knights Professional Services Limited and brought eight deputyship files with her when she joined the firm’s Chester office in 2016. She was appointed to act as deputy in the affairs of client P.

The case centres on Knights’ practice of treating any time costs disallowed by the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) as ‘work in progress’ rather than writing them off. The unbilled WIP reached more than £166,000.

His Honour Judge Hodge KC said that, although Brassington’s job title was partner, she was an employee. ‘Mrs Brassington was contracting solely as agent for P,’ the judge said. 'I further find that she accepted no personal liability for Knights’ remuneration or expenses.

‘No lien can be asserted by Knights against Mrs Brassington, both because she was never Knights’ client, and she was never personally liable for any of their costs and expenses.’

With a nod to the ‘reasons… so elegantly articulated’ by Neil Berragan, acting for Brassington, the judge said Brassington was contracting with Knights solely in her capacity as deputy and as agent for and on behalf of P.

He added: ‘Both parties understood that P, rather than Mrs Brassington, was Knights’ true client, as evidenced by the way the client was identified and referenced in Knights’ statements of account and, by inference, its files and other records. After all, the work Knights was being engaged to carried out was for the benefit of P, rather than Mrs Brassington personally.’

The 32-page judgment acknowledges that the ‘standard deputyship letter is not an apt document to govern the retainer of solicitors by CoP-appointed deputy’.

The standard deputyship letter did not mean Brassington or her family co-deputies were assuming any personal liability for any irrecoverable remuneration and expenses incurred by Knights. The judge said there was no ‘shred of evidence’ that Brassington or anyone at Knights informed the family co-deputies that they were assuming any personal liability to the firm and therefore never gave their informed consent.

He added: ‘Nor can I understand why, if Knights ever considered and understood that Mrs Brassington (or any of her co-deputies) had assumed the risk of non-recovery of Knights’ remuneration and expenses... this was never drawn to her (or their) attention at any time during the period of more than six years that unbilled WIP was mounting up.'

It was accepted that P is not liable for any remuneration and expenses that have been disallowed on assessment by the SCCO.

 

This article is now closed for comment.