A former client accused by a law firm of a cynical attempt to get out of paying legal bills has lost his attempted High Court challenge.
In Biggar v Howard Kennedy costs judge Leonard ruled that claimant Alan Biggar, who faced charges of fraudulent trading, had chosen to stay with London firm Howard Kennedy over cheaper options and understood what it would cost. However Biggar applied for assessment of 19 bills coming to almost £196,000, the last of which was delivered in July 2023. The first three bills in the series had been paid but the remainder were wholly or partly unpaid.
Biggar relied partly on an engagement letter from 2020 in which the firm had given an initial costs estimate of between £10,000 and £15,000. He argued in court that the eventual ‘significant deviation’ called for an explanation and itself established the special circumstances needed to grant an assessment. He added that the deadline for challenging at least some of the bills had passed while he was in the midst of his long-running criminal trial, so he should be given extra leeway to bring a claim out of time.
Howard Kennedy said Biggar was well aware of the bills he was receiving, having paid some in full, and was now advancing ‘vague, generalised complaints in order to delay repayment’. The process for challenging bills was ‘not intended to provide a debtor with breathing space years later in order to defer the inevitable’.
Leonard dismissed the claimant’s submission based on to the 2020 engagement letter. He said this set out a preliminary estimate for reviewing the papers, contacting the Financial Conduct Authority and giving some initial advice. This was ‘quickly superseded’ by the progress of the defence.
While the firm did not provide the sort of regular estimates promised in the engagement letter, the judge said there was nothing to suggest that this extra information would have made Biggar do anything differently. The client had made clear as late as March 2023 that he wanted to continue to instruct Howard Kennedy.
Leonard added: ‘The claimant was advised from the outset about his right to challenge the defendant’s bills, and of the fact that that right was subject to time limits. He was reminded of that every time he received a bill. At no point, until he finally had to defend a claim for outstanding fees, did he ever express any dissatisfaction with the amount of the defendant’s bills.’
The application for the assessment of the bills was dismissed.
No comments yet