Factual and Procedural Background
On 15 November 2018, the Plaintiff sustained personal injuries from a workplace accident. The Plaintiff engaged the Defendant to act on his behalf, and the claim was resolved by settlement on 14 December 2020. However, the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff with a final invoice for the costs incurred. Subsequently, the Plaintiff instructed Attorney Green of Company A solicitors to review the charges, requiring a final statutory bill to consider options.
Attorney Green requested the final statute bill from the Defendant on 14 August 2024, enclosing an authority and requesting delivery within 14 days. The Defendant's senior manager responded on 27 August 2024, refusing to act until a "properly signed form of authority" was received. The Plaintiff provided a handwritten signed authority on 10 September 2024, which was emailed to the Defendant on 25 September 2024 with a revised delivery deadline.
No response was received from the Defendant, prompting a further letter on 15 October 2024 demanding the bill by 22 October 2024 and warning of a Part 8 application under section 68(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974. No response followed, leading to the issuance of the Part 8 application on 30 October 2024. The Defendant eventually delivered the final statute bill on 10 December 2024.
The court scheduled hearings on 6 January 2025 and 4 February 2025, but the matter was not heard until 20 March 2025 due to scheduling issues. The court reserved judgment after hearing detailed submissions, indicating that any quantification of costs would initially be left to the parties to resolve.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Defendant’s conduct prior to and during proceedings justified a departure from the general rule that costs follow the event.
- Whether the Plaintiff complied with the pre-action protocol and Practice Direction concerning pre-action conduct.
- The appropriate order as to costs in light of the parties’ conduct and the circumstances surrounding the delivery of the final statute bill.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The Plaintiff’s conduct before proceedings commenced was unreasonable and failed to comply with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, particularly regarding the timing and tone of correspondence.
- The initial requests for the final statute bill lacked any indication that litigation would follow, and the short seven-day deadline was unreasonable.
- The Plaintiff was effectively seeking litigation as a first option rather than as a last resort.
- The Plaintiff should have made further efforts, such as telephone calls, before commencing proceedings.
- The Plaintiff’s conduct during proceedings, including refusal to grant an extension for written submissions, was also open to criticism.
- The proceedings were primarily for the pursuit of costs, as evidenced by the lack of any subsequent assessment proceedings under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974.
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Plaintiff complied with the protocol by providing sufficient information to the Defendant to understand the claim and the request for the final statute bill.
- The Defendant did not respond substantively to multiple requests, including a request for a properly signed authority, justifying the commencement of proceedings.
- The seven-day letter was reasonable in context, following two earlier unanswered requests.
- The Defendant’s past practice of providing final statute bills without litigation did not guarantee future compliance.
- The delay in producing the final statute bill (77 days from first letter) was significantly longer than in comparable cases (14 to 28 days).
- The Plaintiff’s conduct during proceedings was not justifiably criticized, and the Defendant failed to explain the basis of objections to the order for delivery of the bill.
- There was no requirement to commence further proceedings under section 70 to validate the initial proceedings under section 68.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the parties' conduct in light of CPR 44.2 and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols. It found that the Plaintiff complied with the protocol by providing clear requests and sufficient information, while the Defendant failed to respond substantively to multiple requests for the final statute bill. The Defendant’s insistence on a "wet ink" signature caused delay, but even allowing for this, the Defendant did not produce the bill within a reasonable timeframe compared to its past practice.
The court rejected the Defendant’s argument that the seven-day letter was unreasonable, holding that after two unanswered requests, such a deadline was appropriate and consistent with the Defendant’s professional obligations. The court also dismissed the Defendant’s contention that the Plaintiff should have made further efforts to communicate before commencing proceedings, noting that the Defendant’s unresponsiveness rendered such efforts futile.
Regarding conduct during proceedings, the court found no justifiable criticism of the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s failure to clarify objections and the attempt to delay through procedural requests reflected poorly on its conduct. The court further rejected the Defendant’s submission that the proceedings were purely for the pursuit of costs, noting that the absence of subsequent assessment proceedings under section 70 was not determinative.
Overall, the court concluded that the Defendant’s conduct did not justify departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event.
Holding and Implications
The court awarded costs to the Plaintiff, holding that the Plaintiff was the successful party and that the costs of the application should be assessed on the standard basis. The Defendant’s conduct, both before and during proceedings, did not warrant a different costs order. No broader precedent was established; the decision applied established principles relating to costs and pre-action conduct in the context of final statute bills under the Solicitors Act 1974.