Contentious or non-contentious business?

Bilkus (respondent) v Stockler Brunton (a firm) (appellant) [2010] EWCA Civ 101, 16 February

The appellant firm of solicitors appealed against a ruling ([2009] EWHC 1957 (Ch); 28/LL p88) upholding the decision of a costs judge to reject its claim for the sum of £50,000, alleged by it to be justified as a value element, or an uplift, for the work which it had carried out on behalf of the respondent. In company proceedings in the Chancery Division, Mr Bilkus was ordered to sell his share in the company at a price to be determined by an independent valuer. The solicitors continued to act for him in relation to the valuation of his share. At the outset of the retainer in January 2001, the solicitors had sent a letter to Mr Bilkus setting out the basis on which they would charge him. The letter referred to its hourly rates but did not mention any uplift. In its final invoice, it included an uplift of £50,000 ‘on all bills since 2001’. Mr Bilkus asserted that he had not agreed to such a charge and issued proceedings under the Solicitors Act 1974 s70 seeking a detailed assessment of the solicitors’ bill. The solicitors applied for permission to amend the narrative for the charge of £50,000 so that it read ‘Uplift to reflect the factors set out in The Solicitors’ (NonContentious Business) Remuneration Order 1994’. The costs judge refused that application and concluded that the solicitors were was not entitled to the uplift sought. The issues were (i) whether the work carried out by the solicitors in connection with the independent valuation of Mr Bilkus’ share in the company was contentious or non-contentious business, as those terms were defined in s87(1) of the 1974 Act, it being common ground that an uplift could be claimed only if the work was non-contentious; (ii) whether solicitors were entitled to remuneration beyond that agreed in its letter of January 2001; (iii) whether the costs judge had been right to refuse permission to amend the invoice.