Carlton v Theodore Goddard and Co: ChD 1973

A solicitor sought to rely on a letter from his client as justifying the presentation of a new and larger bill.
Held: ‘there is the question whether the plaintiff ever required the defendants to deliver to him in lieu of the gross sum bill ‘a bill containing detailed items.’ I cannot see that he has. To require a bill to be taxed is plainly not per se a requirement that a detailed bill should be delivered; for as provisos (b) and (c) to section 64 itself make plain, a lump sum bill may be taxed.’ The court must be concerned with the substance of the request.
Megarry J
[1973] 1 WLR 623
Solicitors Act 1957 64
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPenningtons (a Firm) v Brown CA 30-Apr-1998
The claim concerned the plaintiffs claim for costs having represented the defendant successfully. They delivered a bill which detailed disbursements, and gave a 14 line narrative, but no other detail. The defendant requested more detail, being . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.182996