A former client of full-service firm Herrington Carmichael LLP has failed to have the firm’s invoices – which had previously been described as ‘ludicrous’ by the High Court - subject to a detailed assessment.
In Carl Brendan Hammond v Herrington Carmichael LLP, Costs Judge Whalan said that even if the invoices were disproportionate, it was of ‘no general relevance to a solicitor/client assessment, which proceeds on the indemnity basis’.
The client, Carl Hammond, instructed the firm from 2023 to 2025 in family financial remedy proceedings. The firm sent 29 invoices totalling £174,183.36. Hammond applied for a detailed assessment of all the invoices, which he argued were ‘an entire Chamberlain bill, representing continuous proceedings’. The firm said that the invoices were delivered as interim statute bills. A detailed assessment of two of the invoices was agreed by the parties.
The judgment noted a comment made by His Honour Judge Farquhar during the substantive proceedings describing the costs in the case as 'frankly ludicrous...This is a failure of the system.'
However at the costs hearing the judge was ‘satisfied’ that the 29 invoices, which were ‘drafted with considerable detail’, were interim statute bills (ISBs) ‘and not just a series of interim invoices delivered as part of a Chamberlain bill’ on the proper contractual interpretation of the retainers.
Read more
He said: ‘The terms of engagement are, in my conclusion, unequivocally clear. They provide for the delivery of interim invoices and state that they have the status of ISBs.’ The invoices found to be ISBs and those already paid or part-paid by Hammond cannot be the subject of an assessment under the Solicitors Act 1974, the judgment added.
Hammond, who appeared in person, said a detailed assessment should be made because of ‘special circumstances’ including the High Court's findings on costs, proportionality and litigation conduct.
However finding no special circumstances, the judge said there was ‘nothing…that "calls for an explanation" or the scrutiny of the court’. He added: ‘These costs were incurred pursuant to [the claimant’s] instruction and he was aware of his ongoing, accumulating liability. Most of the invoices delivered by the defendant were paid, within the meaning of the SA 1974.
‘Although the substantive parties’ costs may well have been incurred (individually and collectively) to a level that was disproportionate inter partes, that is of no general relevance to a solicitor/client assessment, which proceeds on the indemnity basis.'
No comments yet