Ralph Hume Garry v Gwillim CA: Ward and Mance LJJ and Sir Martin Nourse: 22 October 2002 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although the Solicitors Act 1974 and good practice required bills submitted by solicitors to clients to contain an adequate description of the work done to justify the charge, knowledge possessed by a particular client might be sufficient to supplement any lack of full narrative and thus prevent a bill from being defective. The Court of Appeal so held in reserved judgments dismissing an appeal by the defendant, a solicitor, Mr David Gwillim, from a decision of Tomlinson J on 27 September 2001 refusing to strike out the claim made against the defendant for recovery of fees for professional charges amounting to some £128,000 incurred by the claimant, Ralph Hume Garry, solicitors instructed by the defendant to act on his behalf on contentious business. The defendant, an experienced solicitor embroiled in a partnership dispute, instructed the claimant to act for him, agreeing to its standard terms of business for fees calculated at hourly rates. The defendant's case was that the claimant was not entitled to sue on a number of the fee notes subsequently rendered because, not being in proper form laid down by s 64 of the Solicitors Act 1974, they failed to comply with the strict requirements for remuneration in respect of contentious business in s 69 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (action to recover costs) and were thus not bona fide bills. WARD LJ said the issue as to the propriety of the bills raised a point of principle of importance to solicitors. The answer required trawling through statutes and case law stretching back 273 years. The defendant relied on dicta of Denning LJ in In re a Solicitor [1955] 2 QB 252 requiring a bill to contain a summarised statement of work done. The claimant's case was that the bills contained sufficient to identify to the defendant what he was being asked to pay for, the court being fully entitled to take account of his total knowledge of the work being done for him. Having considered Haigh v Ousey (1857) 7 El & Bl 578, Keene v Ward (1849) 13 QB 513 and Cook v Gillard (1852) 1 E & B 26, the conclusion was that a bill would not comply with s 69(2) if a client showed there was no sufficient narrative to identify what he was being charged for and that he did not have sufficient knowledge from other documents or from what he had been told reasonably to take advice whether or not to apply for that bill to be taxed. The sufficiency of the narrative and of the knowledge would vary from case to case. Here the bills might not have said much but did identify the matter concerned and the period over which the work was done. Whether the client's knowledge was sufficient to supplement the lack of full narrative was a matter of fact. The judge was entitled to conclude that it was inappropriate to strike out the claim, the claimant having shown a real prospect of establishing at the trial that the defendant knew all he needed about the work and the basis of charging reasonably to be able to exercise his right to seek taxation. By way of postscript the profession could give consideration to providing clients with printouts of account department computer records so as to avoid such unseemly disputes. In these days where there seemed to be a need for transparency in all things, was a printout not the least a client was entitled to expect? MANCE LJ gave a concurring judgment and SIR MARTIN NOURSE agreed with WARD LJ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appearances: Philip Newman (Bar Pro Bono Unit) for the defendant; Paul Girolami QC (Barlow Lyde & Gilbert) for the claimant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reported by: Harriet Dutton, barrister