Solicitor and client costs

Statute bills

A solicitor’s invoice will only be a ‘statute bill’ if it complies with the requirements of section 69 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (SA 1974). This is important because no claim may be brought by a solicitor to recover costs due to them until they have delivered a compliant ‘statute bill’ in respect of those costs, and have allowed a period of one month to expire (see SA 1974, s 69(1)).

In respect of interim and final statute bills, all statute bills are ‘final’ for the period that they cover, in the sense that a statute bill cannot be amended or altered after delivered, save in narrow circumstances.

In order to determine whether an invoice is a compliant ‘statute bill’ (of either kind), the court will need to consider whether the invoice complies with:

  1. the express requirements of SA 1974, s 69

  2. the ‘implicit’ requirements of form and content imposed by the common law, and

  3. whether the solicitor was permitted to deliver a statute bill at the relevant time

For guidance on what a statute bill

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents