Ralph Hume Garry (a Firm) v Gwillim: CA 22 Oct 2002

The appellant sought to have struck out the claimant’s action to recover their costs having represented him. He said that the detail in the bill was so deficient as not to comply with the requirements of the Act.
Held: Though the detail given in the bill was inadequate, it was permissible to make allowance for the appellant’s own knowledge and understanding of the case to satisfy the gravamen of the requirement which was that the client should know what he was being asked to pay for. The inadequacies could be remedied by accompanying documents, or information the client already had. In modern times, the least a client could expect was a computer printout to show what had taken place.

Ward, Mance, Nourse, LLJ
Times 04-Nov-2002, Gazette 21-Nov-2002, [2002] EWHC 9034 (Costs)
Solicitors Act 1974 64 69
England and Wales
CitedIn re a Solicitor (Taxation of Costs) CA 1955
Matrimonial proceedings were in contemplation but the instructions to solicitors were terminated before a petition for judicial separation was filed. The client complained as to the costs bill submitted by the solicitors.
Denning LJ disposed of . .
CitedHaigh v Ousey 1857
. .
CitedKeene v Ward 1849
. .
CitedCook v Gillard 1852
A solicitor delivered his bill. The first part for pounds 2 19s 8d related to attending the defendant and consulting as to slanderous reports; there were then charges for ‘Letter before action’, ‘Instructions to sue’, ‘Writ of summons’, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs, Costs

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.177849