There is no requirement to break down the costs in every case where a litigation service has been provided, the High Court has ruled.
In Motor Insurers’ Bureau v Santiago Mr Justice Moody rejected a request from defendants that solicitors should specify the cost of interpreter services included as part of the wider bill. The ruling is a significant marker in the long-running dispute between claimant lawyers and paying parties about the level of detail provided for cost assessments, and how much if anything is being retained by the firms.
The judge said there may be cases where an abuse is suspected, or where it is necessary to establish the reasonableness of the fee charged, where a breakdown should be required and provided. But, in his opinion, no rule of law or practice requires a breakdown in every case where a litigation service is provided through a company.
‘The court’s task is to assess reasonableness and proportionality,’ he added. ‘It is a question of fact in any particular case as to whether a breakdown is required in order to enable the court to perform its task.’
The underlying case had been an RTA claim that had settled on the first day of the trial for £20,000 and was subject to the fixed costs regime.
The claimant was a Portuguese speaker and required an interpreter. His solicitors, Liverpool firm Bond Turner, claimed £924 for an interpreter from an agency called Professional and Legal Services Ltd (PALS). Both PALS and Bond Turner are part of the listed Anexo group.
The Motor Insurers Bureau, which was the defendant because the at-fault driver in the crash was not covered, had sought a breakdown of the PALS invoice so that the sum actually paid for this service could be identified. The court heard that the interpreter would provide translation services directly for an all-inclusive fee of £300.
Lawyers for the MIB said that in the absence of a breakdown, the court should assess the fee at nil. Alternatively, given the interpreter’s standard rate it could be inferred that Bond Turner could have negotiated with him and achieved a lower rate than was paid.
In the Central London County Court, His Honour Judge Dight CBE said he was ‘not unsympathetic’ to the MIB objection that Bond Turner and PALS were connected, which could lead to a lack of transparency in the transaction. But he was not persuaded that a breakdown had to be provided so that, as he put it, the agency component may be ‘stripped out’ and he assessed the costs at £794.40.
On appeal, Mr Justice Moody said a number of companies provide interpreter services and it was ‘inevitable’ that only part of the sum paid to the company would end up in the pocket of the interpreter. He also accepted the claimant’s submission that there was nothing unlawful about procuring services as a law firm from a related company.
The MIB’s appeal was dismissed.
No comments yet