This site uses cookies.

Laurence Sprey -v- Rawlinson Butler LLP [2018] EWHC 354 (QB) - Andrew McAulay, Clarion

26/10/18. Following the introduction of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2013 (LASPO), solicitor/own client costs disputes have increased. The case of Laurence Sprey -v- Rawlinson Butler LLP [2018] EWHC 354 (QB) is a good case to read for anyone who would like to learn more about these types of disputes.

The case was an Appeal by the Claimant to the High Court from a decision of Master Rowley in the Senior Courts Costs Office. The principal issue in the Appeal was whether monthly invoices delivered by the law firm to the client under a discounted conditional fee agreement were ‘statute invoices’. Master Rowley had decided that the relevant invoices were ‘statute invoices’ and the consequence of his decision was that the client was unable to challenge the invoices pursuant to the time limits in section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974.

The Appeal was successful and the Honourable Mr Justice Nicklin (sitting with Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker) set-aside the decision of Master Rowley and allowed an assessment of the relevant invoices. At the heart of their decision was the detailed consideration of the CFA Agreement between the law firm and the client. Ultimately, they decided that the CFA Agreement did not allow interim ‘statute invoices’ to be raised i.e. final monthly invoices. The CFA was a contingency agreement and a final invoice could only be raised on conclusion of the claim - as at this point the total costs incurred would be...

Image ©

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.