A costs bill was still valid despite the solicitors neglecting to tick one of the boxes, the Court of Appeal has ruled. The local authority in Duffy v Birmingham City Council had challenged the bill of almost £27,000 in a housing disrepair claim on the basis that it did not comply with the indemnity principle.

A solicitor from Liverpool-based claimant firm High Street Solicitors had signed the bill and certified that it was accurate and complete. But the practitioner left blank the box next to the statement which said: ‘[in respect of parts…of the bill] the costs claimed herein do not exceed the costs which the receiving party is liable to pay to me/my firm’.

The claimant had secured a default costs certificate after the council failed to file and serve points of dispute within the permitted 21 days, but then took up the issue around the completeness of the bill.

Making its case to the Court of Appeal, the defendant conceded that not every failure to comply with mandatory provisions as to the form and content of a bill of costs would render a bill invalid and ineffective.

Read more

But it argued that the failure to include certification with the indemnity principle was a different matter due to its fundamental importance.

Judges favoured the claimant firm and ruled the bill was valid and therefore effective. Lord Justice Phillips said the failure to provide express certification, particularly if not explained or remedied when queried, could justify a challenge by the paying party. But in this case it was a minor defect with the bill that did not render it invalid.

The judge added: ‘Whilst the express certification that the bill complies with the indemnity principle is a mandatory requirement under the rules, there is no justification for treating a breach of that requirement as fatal to the validity of the bill any more than any other breach. Indeed, given that the signature of the bill constitutes implicit certification, it may be seen as a less serious error than many others.’

The council is still able to pursue an alternative application for an order permitting it to dispute the bill, but the judge cautioned over adding to the existing £45,000 costs incurred just on this appeal. He added: ‘Whether that has been a good use of public funds, and whether further challenges would be a good use of further public funds, must be open to debate.’