Master Gordon-Saker refused to permit the Solicitors to substitute their proposed amended bill, on the ground that he could not be satisfied that the error in describing the claim for andpound;50,000 as an uplift in relation to all the work that they had carried out for Mr Bilkus, including their work in and for the purposes of the proceedings in the Chancery Division, was an error.
Judges:
Master Gordon-Saker
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 90118 (Costs)
Links:
Cited by:
Appeal from – Bilkus v Stockler Brunton (A Firm) ChD 30-Jul-2009
The court upheld the refusal of the master to allow the claimant solicitors to submit an amended bill: ‘In his oral submissions, Mr Stockler . . frankly acknowledged that he had been in error in supposing that it was possible to charge an uplift for . .
Master’s Decision – Bilkus v Stockler Brunton (A Firm) CA 16-Feb-2010
Solicitors appealed against the rejection of their claim for an uplift in their fees amounting to andpound;50,000, based on the value element in the transaction in the 1994 Order. The court had to decide whether the matter came under the rules as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs, Legal Professions
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.316666