Site icon swarb.co.uk

Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Peter D’Arcy Liptrott Jo: SCCO 12 Sep 2002

The applicant challenged a solicitor’s bill for the work in handling an estate. Two preliminary issues arose, as to the hourly rates applicable, and whether a value element should be charged. The court’s task is to assess a sum which is fair and reasonable.
Held: A rate above that generally charged by solicitors in the geographic area was justified where the practitioner was highly experienced and specialist. The claimant argued that a value element should no longer be paid. In view of the omnipresence of computer time recording systems, it is now wrong to charge on both a value element and a time element.

Judges:

Master Rodgers, Costs Judge

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 9008 (Costs)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Solicitors (Non Contentious Business) Remuneration Order 1994 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedJones and Another v Secretary of State for Wales and Another QBD 3-Dec-1996
Specialist provincial solicitors’ firm’s hourly cost rates were not limited by local average rates. . .
Appealed toJemma Trust Company Ltd v Liptrott, Forrester, Kippax Beaumont Lewis CA 24-Oct-2003
Solicitors sought to challenge an order disallowing a costs item for the administration of an estate which included a percentage of the estate.
Held: Despite advances in time recording, ‘we see no reason to say that it is no longer appropriate . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromJemma Trust Company Ltd v Liptrott, Forrester, Kippax Beaumont Lewis CA 24-Oct-2003
Solicitors sought to challenge an order disallowing a costs item for the administration of an estate which included a percentage of the estate.
Held: Despite advances in time recording, ‘we see no reason to say that it is no longer appropriate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.175484

Exit mobile version