Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
Katrina Mather, barrister at Hardwicke Chambers, examines Sinel v Singh and discusses the documentation a judge needs to assess quantum of counsel’s fees.
This decision is the appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal following an application for strike out of the defence to a claim for payment of counsel’s fees where the judge at first instance summarily assessed the amount of counsel’s
Kuldip Singh QC of Serle Court Chambers was instructed by Mr Sinel (an advocate in Jersey) in 2006 to assist one of his clients. Mr Singh was instructed on an agreed hourly rate of £500 to undertake various pieces of work. Between May and December
2006, Mr Singh carried out the work he was instructed to do and was paid.
In January 2007, Mr Sinel instructed Mr Singh to carry out further work. Mr Sinel failed to pay the sums due under the four fee notes that arose from this work. On 1 April 2013, Mr Singh issued proceedings against Mr Sinel for unpaid fees in the sum of
£108,694 plus interest. Mr Sinel denied liability on the following grounds:
Mr Singh issued an application for the defence to be struck out and alternatively summary judgment. Mr Edwards appeared on behalf of Mr Sinel at the first hearing. Mr Edwards dropped the limitation defence because there had been an acknowledgment of the
debt within the preceding six-year period. He proceeded on the basis of an hourly rate of £500 and made it clear that he did not challenge that the claimant had actually done the number of hours work he claimed for. Mr Edwards instead argued
that it was not reasonable for the claimant to spend the number of hours on the work that he did.
The judge at first instance held as follows:
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal on three grounds. The judge did not:
The Court of Appeal found that the judge did have the necessary material to assess quantum of counsel’s fees. The judge had the following documentation before him when making his determination:
The judge also heard full argument from both parties.
The court found that the judge’s reasoning was sufficient. Having concluded that it would not be in accordance with the overriding objective to order an inquiry to the quantum of the costs, he awarded £102,307.20 on the basis that £44,826
of the sum claimed was undisputed and 90% of the balance disputed was due and this equated to £57,481.20. He acknowledged this was rough justice, but, having regard to the evidence and arguments, felt this was a proportionate manner in which
to deal with the assessment.
In the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, the defendant had sought to rely on 1-800 Flowers Inc v Phonenames Limited  EWCA Civ 271 and sought to argue that the judges in both cases fell into the same error. In 1-800 Flowers, the judge
ignored the detailed bill of costs filed by both parties and instead held that a case of that sort should cost no more than £10,000 and assessed costs in that sum. The Court of Appeal found that the judge in the Sinel v Singh case had not fallen
into this error. The judge had paid close attention to the costs figures put forward by both parties and he arrived at a conclusion which lay some way between the claimant’s contentions and the defendant’s contentions.
This case does not define the documents that a judge must have in order to assess quantum of counsel’s fees. However, it does give an illustration of what documentation was sufficient in this case. It further highlights the necessity of good record
In terms of reasoning, it does not appear that the judge at first instance gave many reasons for his decision at all. However, he had regard to evidence and arguments presented by the parties and came to his judgment on the basis of the information before
him. This was in contrast to the approach taken in 1-800 Flowers where the judge imposed a pre-conceived notion of the appropriate figure.
Katrina Mather accepts advisory and court instructions in property, commercial, insolvency and personal injury matters. She frequently appears in the County Court, conducting trials on all tracks as well as making applications. She has extensive experience appearing in Stage 3 quantum hearings with a strong record for securing favourable awards both in damages and costs. She is available to provide advice on quantum.
Interviewed by Barbara Bergin. The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
0330 161 1234