Claimant solicitors who submitted ‘intentionally misleading’ costs bills acted unreasonably and improperly, a judge has found.

Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker said Liverpool firm Parkerwall Limited had claimed for the cost of work where there was no evidence in the file that the work had been done.

He ruled in Ann Francis Ikin & Ors v Shawbrook Bank Limited & Ors that the bills for work on nine cases relating to mis-sold solar panels were not accurate and that virtually all the time claimed in each of the bills had been estimated. This was not stated in any of the bills or in response to requests for more details from defendant solicitors.

‘The impression given, up until the first day of the detailed assessment, was that some only of the time claimed had been estimated,’ said Gordon-Saker. ‘The bills are intentionally misleading in that time was claimed for work which was not done (and for which there was nothing that could lead to a reasonable inference that it had been done) and the impression was given that only part of the time had been estimated.’

Defendants in the cases had raised concerns about counsel and expert fees, as well as 18 identical entries in two bills. The court heard that some of the items claimed for were ‘imaginary work’ and Parkerwall’s hourly rate was £400 for all grades of fee-earner.

Parkerwall’s sole director Suzanne Wall, a solicitor, was ordered to attend a hearing in March after the firm filed and served a witness statement explaining why the bill in one case contained misdescriptions of the work done.

In her statement, Wall had said the firm had no experience of dealing with costs in this type of claim and instructed costs lawyers to prepare bills. She signed the bills but said she did not consider each individual item.

Gordon-Saker added: ‘Had Miss Wall checked the bills sufficiently to enable her to sign the certificates, she would have known that they contained entries for which there was no basis in the files. She would also have seen that the time claimed had not been recorded, which should have caused her to check that the time claimed was reasonable. If she did not check the bills sufficiently, she should not have signed the certificates.’

The judge concluded that, in certifying the accuracy of the bills, Wall acted both unreasonably and improperly. He ordered that the total costs allowed on all the cases be reduced by 40% and ordered the claimants to pay 75% of the defendants’ costs of the detailed assessment proceedings.

Following the ruling, Glenn Newberry, partner at Eversheds Sutherland and lawyer for the defendants, said: ‘This is a notable and timely reminder to all in the industry that a signature on the bill of costs really is significant and not just a rubber stamping process. The duty to check the accuracy of the bill lies with the lawyer. Simply signing a bill and trusting that others have got it right is not good enough.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.