Solicitors making deductions from their client’s damages without spelling out that this would happen took ‘unfair advantage’ of her, the Court of Appeal heard today.

Responding to the appeal in Belsner v CAM Legal Services today, PJ Kirby KC said the law firm did not have its client’s informed consent to take around £321.50 that was not recovered from the defendant in a PI claim.

Kirby said the courts had recognised for many years that lawyers held influence and experience over their clients and there was an ‘inequality within that relationship’.

He explained that when they agreed a retainer without setting out exactly how deductions would be made the firm ‘at that stage put themselves in conflict with the client’.

‘They knew at that stage who would benefit from that agreement. They have a contract under which they can enforce the full amount of their costs.

‘They do not tell [Belsner] what amount may be recovered under the fixed costs.’

He added: ‘The client was not told about the recoverability of costs and that they are supposed to be reasonable. The client was not told that the actual costs estimate was five times what was recovered and she was at risk of paying a disproportionate amount of costs.

‘You didn’t spell it out and you could have spelt it out and you were obliged to spell it out in terms of your duties. The unfairness is that the client was not told about the level of fixed costs and did not have the opportunity of making a decision.’

In his response, Benjamin Williams KC, representing CAM Legal, accepted there had been a ‘regrettable disconnect’ between what the documents said and what the firm’s practices were. He added that the deduction was ‘modest and fully in-keeping with [Belsner’s] expectations’.

Master of the rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos said the bill prepared for Belsner was ‘incredibly unclear’ and ‘doesn’t seem to clearly do anything’.

Judges hearing the cases outlined at the start of the day that they are likely to assess themselves whether any costs incurred were reasonable, rather than remit that decision to the county court. Chancellor of the High Court Sir Julian Flaux said it would be ‘grotesque’ to send back the assessment given how small the amount in question were.

Judgment was reserved.

 

This article is now closed for comment.