A former client locked in a dispute over a £3m legal bill has failed with his initial High Court challenge. Vishal Mehta had appealed the order of Costs Judge Whalan that his retainer with London firm Howard Kennedy allowed for the delivery of interim statute bills.

But in Mehta v Howard Kennedy, Mr Justin Kimblin ruled that Whalan had been correct on three of the contested issues (arguments were not heard on a fourth issue which is still to be resolved) and that there had been no special circumstances about the retainer or the rendering of interim statute bills.

The court heard that Mehta had been subjected to a worldwide freezing order and instructed the firm in that litigation, running up a bill of £3.1m over 11 months through 24 invoices. If the court found these invoices were interim statue bills, they would be subject to time limits and Mehta, who was represented by costs recovery firm JG Solicitors, would be debarred from seeking assessment. The firm had previously asserted that 13 invoices were paid by Mehta more than 12 months before the issue of this action, meaning he was not entitled to an assessment.

The court heard that the retainer included a passage stating that if the ‘value’ or ‘importance’ of the underlying case was achieved only as a result of the final settlement, and had not been taken into account in earlier bills, the firm reserved the right to take this into account in its concluding bill.

By retaining a right to revisit the charges raised in the invoice, it was argued by Mehta that the solicitors had effectively qualified the finality and completeness of these bills, so that they ceased to be interim statute bills.

Mr Justice Kimblin agreed with Costs Judge Whalan that the caveat in the retainer was not relevant. He said the retainer was not concerned with a particular outcome which would amount to ‘success’, nor were there any conditional or contingent fees of payments. There was also a dispute as to the proper use of ‘notes’ which accompanied the retainer documents and which were designed to give information and explanations. The judge held that these did not form part of the contract.

He added: ‘Mr Mehta accepted the terms of a retainer which explained the way in which he would receive invoices and which stated that they would be statute bills. The invoices themselves explained that this was so.’

Mehta also submitted that he had not paid Howard Kennedy’s bill because invoices were paid from a variety of sources. Whalan had found nothing irregular or ineffective in payments from a third or nonchargeable party, so long as these payments were made with the knowledge and consent of the client.

Kimblin said this argument could create an ‘easy mechanism’ to avoid the terms of the agreement which the client had entered into, adding it was ‘artificial and unsupported by any factual context’.