References: [2003] EWCA Civ 1476, Times 30-Oct-2003, [2003] NPC 126, [2004] 1 All ER 510, [2003] WTLR 1427, [2004] 1 Costs LR 66, [2004] 1 WLR 646
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Longmore
Ratio: 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 for solicitors to make a separate charge based on value, provided always that one remembers that the solicitor is entitled only to what is fair and reasonable remuneration, taking all relevant factors into account. ‘ There are significant differences in the circumstances in which charges are made for contentious and non-contentious business and the approach to such charges can properly differ even though similar factors apply. It can be of assistance to clients to budget, to substitute an element of a value charge for uncertainty deriving from purely time based costs. Any scale should be regressive. The ultimate safeguard remains the costs judge’s duty to allow only such costs as are fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
Statutes: Solicitors Act 1974 56, The Solicitors (Non-Contentious Business) Remuneration Order 1994
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Property and Reversionary Investment Corporation Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment ([1975] 1 WLR 1504)
In the context of a compulsory purchase of a central London building, the court commented on the various factors which the Order required to be taken into account. In relation to ‘the amount or value of any money or property involved’:- ‘This is an . . - Cited – Loveday v Renton (No 2) ([1992] 3 All ER 184)
A brief fee might include work done during the course of a trial. The appropriateness of the approach and the need for elements to be calculated according to the value at stake and the hourly expense rate are to be calculated realistically. . . - Cited – Treasury Solicitor v Regester ([1978] 1 WLR 446)
A challenge was made as to the legal costs on the grant of a lease of a valuable commercial property.
Held: In relation to the time spent on the business which was the third factor in the 1972 Order: ‘The magnetic attraction of factor (iii) as . . - Cited – Leopold Lazarus v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ((1976) Costs Law Reports, Core Volume 62)
The general principle governing the calculation of costs rates should allow for two elements, the value of the subject matter or amount at stake, and the expense of providing the service. . . - Cited – Maltby v D J Freeman ([1978] 1 WLR 431)
The court laid down guidance for solicitors in charging in the administration of estates: ‘when one comes to translate value into terms of the legal bill, the approach involves two ingrained habits of legal thought. There is nothing strictly logical . . - Cited – Regina v Wilkinson ([1980] 1 WLR 396, [1980] 1 All ER 597)
The court was attracted by the Law Society’s submission that the general principles that costs should reflect the amount at stake and the expense of providing the service, should govern also court attendances during litigation. The court identified . . - Cited – In re Eastwood ([1980] 1 WLR 396)
The court identified two elements to make up a solicitor’s hourly rate in contentious matters. The expense of time and a percentage mark up applied to take account of amongst other matters the amount of any money or property involved.
Held: . . - Cited – Finley v Glaxo Laboratories ((1989) Costs Law Reports 106)
Hobhouse J said: ‘I would not lend support to the adoption of an unduly low hourly rate and then seeking to put it right by applying a higher uplift percentage. The right approach is that which I have emphasised, namely to adopt a realistic approach . . - Cited – Johnson v Reed Corrugated Cases Ltd ([1992] 1 All ER 169)
The costs principles set out in the Masters’ Practice Notes and which endorsed the dual approach of assessing and adding an element to reflect the value at stake in litigation as well as the hourly expense rate of providing that service in all . . - Appeal from – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Peter D’Arcy Liptrott Jo SCCO (Bailii, [2002] EWHC 9008 (Costs))
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 . . - See Also – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis (A Firm) and others CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 248)
The defendant firm of solicitors, acting as executors had sought to arrange matters to minimise Inheritance Tax. A deed of variation was put in place after approval by the court, but the CTO interpreted the deed differently. The executors believed . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Appealed to – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Peter D’Arcy Liptrott Jo SCCO (Bailii, [2002] EWHC 9008 (Costs))
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 . . - See Also – Jemma Trust Company Limited v Kippax Beaumont Lewis and others ChD (Bailii, [2004] EWHC 703 (Ch))
. . - See Also – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis and others CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1645)
The defendants asserted that they had executed a trust deed on the advice of senior counsel in conference. The judge said the notes of the meeting did not justify that conclusion. The firm sought permission to appeal.
Held: There was room for . . - See Also – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis (A Firm) and others CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 248)
The defendant firm of solicitors, acting as executors had sought to arrange matters to minimise Inheritance Tax. A deed of variation was put in place after approval by the court, but the CTO interpreted the deed differently. The executors believed . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 29 September 2019
Ref: 187085
The post Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Liptrott, Forrester, Kippax Beaumont Lewis: CA 24 Oct 2003 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.