Aaron v Okoye: CA 15 Jan 1998

The plaintiff solicitor had acted for the respondent barrister in legal proceedings. The respondent was unhappy with work done on her behalf by counsel instructed by the plaintiff, and declined to pay. The solicitor taxed his bill excluding counsel’s fees, and negotiations proceeded to agree counsel’s fees. The respondent then claimed the bill should not have been taxed without counsel’s fees.
Held: The omission of counsel’s fees from the first bill was understandable and did not vitiate the taxation. Nor did the separate delivery of a bill for counsel’s fees deny any right to taxation of that bill. Appeal dismissed.
Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Hobhouse
[1998] EWCA Civ 25
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCobbett v Wood 1908
Counsel’s fees having been omitted from the solicitor’s bill as taxed, they could not later be claimed. . .
CitedChamberlain v Boodle and King 1982
A second solicitor’s bill was not susceptible to taxation because it related to what was in effect one continuous matter for which a bill had already been taxed. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 April 2021; Ref: scu.143503