![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just Β£5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> Helvadjian v Ambrose Appelbe Solicitors [2009] EWHC 90133 (Costs) (30 January 2009) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2009/90133.html Cite as: [2009] EWHC 90133 (Costs) |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SUPREME COURT COSTS OFFICE
London, EC4A 1DQ |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
CAROLINE HELVADJIAN |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
AMBROSE APPELBE SOLICITORS |
Defendant |
____________________
Mr Richard Morgan of Ambrose Appelbe for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 15 October 2008, 19 November 2008 and 14 January 2009
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Senior Costs Judge:
INTRODUCTION
"1. A detailed assessment must be made of the profit costs claimed in the bill as set out in the schedule hereto delivered to the claimant by the defendants.
2. On making the detailed assessment the court must also assess the costs of these proceedings and certify what is due to or from either party in respect of the bill and the costs of these proceedings.
3. Until these proceedings are concluded the defendants must not commence or continue any proceedings against the claimant in respect of the bill mentioned above.
4. Upon payment by the claimant of any sums certified as due to the defendants in these proceedings, the defendants must deliver to the claimants all the documentation in the defendant's possession or control which belong to the claimant."
"IT IS ORDERED
(1) that permission to appeal be granted and the appeal be allowed
(2) that the Order of Master O'Hare be set aside
(3) that the detailed assessment be continued in the Supreme Court Costs Office before a Costs Judge other than Master O'Hare
(4) that in no circumstances shall the amount payable by the Respondent to the Applicant exceed £30,000 in the light of the price indication of 21st April 2006 given by the Applicant to the Respondent but that this cap shall not apply to any costs found in the course of such detailed assessment not to have been contemplated by the Applicant in giving the said price indication
AND THE COURT makes no Order for the costs of this hearing."
BACKGROUND
"On 24, 25 and 26 of May at the Royal Courts of Justice there is the husband's appeal and the client's cross-appeal, which will take two days reading. The client has no legal background. There have been a series of hearings.
[There is then an illegible line]
No skeleton argument she says, other than for final hearing, lever arch files in 6 to 7 days."
"Client phoned.
She has an appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice on 24, 25 and 26 May 2006. It consists of 5 lever arch files full of papers and she reckons there is at least 2 days reading. The final hearing listed between 6 and 7 days.
It is the husband's appeal and also the client's [cross] appeal.[2] She has got no legal background. She was acting in person. There are a series of hearings following the final hearing, for example directions for the sale of the house. She has got to prepare a skeleton argument. She did have Neil Russell of B D Laddie acting for her but he then discovered there was a conflict as he knew Melvin Langley, who was somebody who had been previously involved in the case.
Client asked for an estimate of our fees for representing her. I told her our initial estimate was £25,000 and we already potentially held Mr Ian Cook, a renowned barrister of 1 Kings Bench Walk to cover the appeal. The client will put us in funds on Monday. I put her through to Van[3] who gave her our Barclays client account details.
Client will also come in on Monday to sign a client care letter and bring us the papers."
"We understand you are meeting Caroline Helvadjian at 11.30 today in order to take on her case. Caroline has requested that I send you her files which I now do. In a plastic envelope on top of the files is a further application notice which has not been served. If I can provide any further assistance to you please do not hesitate to contact me."
"On 21 April just minutes before 4 pm your client served by fax an amended notice of appeal which she signed as a litigant in person. We are prepared to accept this document as her final notice of appeal. However given it was signed herself as litigant in person would you please confirm you are still acting."
"I have received a substantial number of documents from my client although I understand that further documents are to be provided, I have not yet completed my review of the papers. I have arranged a conference with counsel on 21 April, at which time I will have reviewed the papers, and obtained counsel's view generally with regard to the appeal and cross-appeals.
I thank you for letting me have a copy of the order made on 24 the subject of an appeal. I am still looking through all the appeal March 2006 although I understand that the order itself may be notices."
"When we said £25,000, we were not including the appeal against the order of HHJ Compston."
THE EVIDENCE
Ms Helvadjian
"I understood that we were not pursuing the appeal issued by you on 7 April regarding [the Compston order]."
"When you rang last Friday, I understood it was to inform me that my appellant's notice had not been served, which worried me. You advised not to follow that appeal, but I discussed with you why I wanted the appeal served. At no point have I not wanted the appeal served. I still want the appeal served unless there is another way to deal with the history of the hearings between 13/12/05 and 24/3/06 and how Mr Preston has misled the court over and over again. It is because of this appeal that I have instructed solicitors. It was my intention to serve myself, but I thought it better that my solicitor prepare skeletal argument. I have just received a note from the court regarding this giving until 26/5/06 to do so. I have faxed to you, otherwise there is costs implication to me.
It is paramount as discussed in our meeting with Lisa Bolgar Smith that Mr Preston does not act as the conveyancer in this case. He has requested the deeds off Halifax and I do not know whether this has affected my mortgage offer from them and thus my appeal
Please can you confirm that he will be removed as it would be unreasonable for my conveyancer to be his solicitor, or this point will be appealed, particularly as what will happen if cross-appeals are thrown out of court. I can see no reason to change DJ Green's order in regard to conveyancer.
My appeal is not valid if, I have to pay any costs whatsoever. I can only afford the £180,000 provided they have not jeopardised my mortgage offer with Halifax, as no-one else will lend me that amount of money. However, I am not sure about this point as I am appealing the order that Alpine Bond Ltd should be investigated and Mr Williams' beneficial interest noted and considered." (bundle C, page 131)
"I had supplied the transcript of hearing as well as a document from the PSU stating I had not been allowed to give my submissions in court and I wanted a response to what took place during the hearing versus the overwhelming evidence I had handed to them, demonstrating the submissions of the other side, were wholly wrong. This was my main reason for instructing solicitors."
"I write this note to confirm that I wanted AA to serve a skeletal argument in regard to the appeal up to the last day allowed, ie 26/5/06. I could not do it myself as they had all the relevant documentation and I wanted a professional job. I was confused somewhat over the issue that Mr Cook [counsel] and Mr Morgan informed me that they could deal with the main cause for concern on the HHJ Compston order, that of Mr Preston acting as conveyancer at the end of the cross-appeals."
"I forwarded £24,000 of the £25,000 discussed in advance, after which I found that AA had missed important deadlines (I got an extension of time). HHJ Compston's appeal was discussed at the first meeting with Lisa Bolgar Smith at length when I visited her offices in April.
AA did not provide me with a suitable alternative way to deal with this legal battle I had on my hands and to which I had openly stated in court, I would need to seek solicitors help to deal with it for me."
"1. Client was informed by Richard Morgan that Ian Cook would advise her on the evidence in his possession (being the five volumes of the final trial bundle, a bundle of appeal papers and a further bundle of appeal papers put together by the client) and as he saw it. The client was advised that Ian Cook would work to whatever instructions the client wanted.
7. Ian Cook again advised her after she persisted along the avenue of discussing the marketing of 40 Southway that the marketing of Southway was not an issue. Again, he reiterated that in his view she would not be awarded a larger percentage than she had received from the order of [DJ Green] of 30 September 2005.
25. The client again stated that there WAS evidence of serious trading and they did not consider this at the hearing. Ian Cook again advised that they did take all this into consideration and there was no evidence she could show him.
26. Ian Cook advised the client strongly at this point that he was "deadly serious" that the client must stop issuing appeals on a whim and that they had consequences. Ian Cook again stated they should withdraw their appeals and by doing so seek costs against the other side.
27. The client asked what evidence she could produce that would convince the court. Ian Cook stated that Ambrose Appelbe would be able to advise her on that, but that this was not the time to discuss the same.
28. The client and Ian Cook proceeded to discuss the issue over the value of the house and how the offer of £1.35 million had been withdrawn, which in Ian Cook's eyes was a great shame as it showed a substantial rise in the value of the property. Ian Cook asked if she could raise the monies to buy out her ex husband's share of the property and also whether she could afford the repayments of such a remortage. The client could not at this stage.
29. Ian Cook consoled the client that she had been making her points forcibly but that he was still not convinced by them. He reiterated that they must focus on the relevant issues as they were getting side tracked with issues not relevant to this APPEAL.
36. The client agreed that we would withdraw all her appeals. Ian Cook stated he would lodge a position statement with the court by 4 pm on Monday stating that we were withdrawing our appeals and that we would be seeking to uphold the order given by DJ Green for the reasons stated in her judgment. He would also see if he could reduce the time estimate for the hearing to two days."
"Have to go with your decision.
My advice.
Don't doubt your advice but it upsets.
Best chance to keep good order.
focus.
Complete set of Calderbanks.
Written b4 sum adjudicated on costs.
* - full set of (illegible).
21 March"
"4 pm Monday argument.
not appeal.
illegible.
seek uphold."
Richard Morgan
"Is your client proceeding with her appeal against the order allowing this firm to continue acting? If so what are her grounds for appeal?
Is your client proceeding with her appeal preventing her from going to Andre Street? If so what are her grounds
Is your client proceeding with her appeal against the division of the sale proceeds of 40 Southway? "
"Please can you confirm the skeletal argument was prepared for the appeal of 24/3/06. I am not really sure what is happening regarding appeal and who counsel will be and when I will get to prepare case."
"I still want appeal to be served and date sought as originally requested as it can always be withdrawn at the time if necessary ...."
SUBMISSIONS
"The client has also appealed the order of 24 March 2006 [the Compston order] (F29). However, this has not been served to date. Instructing solicitors are of the opinion that the order gave opportunity to the client regarding additional papers and notices. These were not taken advantage in a full fashion. The application was essentially a committal due to the client not giving fair opportunity to the estate agents to market the property. The transcript shows that the client had not been fully co-operative, although the client would argue that the true picture was not as extreme as that portrayed by the other side.
The client's real concern arising from that order is Preston & Co being marked as the conveyancing solicitors and the costs order. Now that the client has instructed solicitors the circumstances have changed and moreover given the inflammatory possibilities of keeping Preston & Co as conveyancer then counsel is instructed to canvass with opposing counsel the option of choosing a more neutral conveyancer, anyone else."
"Counsel is referred to the papers generally.
Counsel is invited to discuss matters with Richard Morgan of instructing solicitors. In addition a conference with the client will assist matters.
Counsel is instructed to advise and represent the client upon the appeal listed at the RCJ on Wednesday 24 May 2006 with a time estimate of three days."
CONCLUSIONS
"If the matters can be agreed now, then we would also wish to avoid a potential flashpoint raised by Porter & Co being the identified solicitor on the conveyance and the transferor being our client. Given our involvement now we would hope that the conveyance could be transferred to this firm and that your client would find re-assurance in the avoidance of extra tension, possible conflict and our professional obligations."
"Your reference to Porter & Co in your letter is a mystery to us. This firm has been appointed by the High Court to carry out the conveyancing and we see no reason not to undertake this."
"We apologise for our reference to Porter & Co, which should have been a reference to Preston & Co. Circumstances have changed since the identification of your firm as the potential conveyancer and we would hope that this particular aspect can be dealt with by agreement."
"Circumstances have not changed in relation to the appointment of his firm as conveyancer. As stated by HHJ Compston there is no reason why this firm cannot act."
"Please can you confirm the skeletal argument was prepared for the appeal of 24.3.06 [ie, the Compston order]. I am not really sure what is happening regarding appeal and who counsel will be and when I will get to prepare case.
Although I have previously acted as a litigant in person due to lack of funds I have instructed yourselves because I found I was unable to represent myself due to situations out of my control, particularly that the hearings between 13.12.05 and 24.3.06, went against me due to a number of admin mistakes and particularly that HHJ Compston did not allow me to make any submissions nor read my affidavit (personally placed on top of file by me), chronology (handed over before hearing) with further evidence including letter from court attached. I have enquired and been informed that if it is found that HHJ Compston did not allow a full and fair hearing for myself at the appeal then a request can be made for costs from Central Funds."
"Further to our discussion today, I am extremely anxious about the appeal of HHJ Compston's order. I have been told I am entitled to a full and fair hearing. I did not get one. I have been told the only way to deal with this is by way of appeal. Hence I put my appeal in and handed papers to be firstly served by Neil Russell and then he handed over to yourselves. I thought they had been served.
I still want appeal to be served and date sought as originally requested, as it can always be withdrawn at the time, if necessary. I do not want it left that I in some way have deserved to be awarded costs, or that I hindered sale of house which will allow them to get further costs awarded against me. My affidavit addressed issues to do with points 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11 of HHJ Compston's order. If they didn't apply for committal to prison, why was I being awarded costs of the committal? On top of that they will ask for costs in relation to hearings between 13.12.05 30.1.06. I do not understand how this matter will be corrected without the appeal.
HHJ Compston did not read my chronology handed to him on the day of hearing which also related to point 9 of his order, but he read the other side's note.
Point 4, point 7, point 10 is strongly appealed of his order.
I thought appeal of 24.3.06 would be dealt with at same time as main appeal, and I was told that if I did not get a full and fair hearing, I could ask for compensation and this would come from Central Funds.
If the Judge dismisses both appeals, what about HHJ Compston's order then? I must stress that it is extremely important that I do not risk in any way Mr Preston being the conveyancer for my property, if I have to sell, or appeals thrown out. If appeals thrown out and costs awarded to Mr Williams, can I still pay him off? Instead of selling at least in the short term, as I don't want to be tied into Mr Williams anymore after hearing."
"Is your client proceeding with her appeal against the order allowing this firm to continue acting? If so what are her grounds of appeal? " (bundle C, page 226)
"With reference to the above I must say that to make such an appeal would be fruitless and may not even be possible. I understand from our conversations that you believe that you should appeal an order on the basis that the outcome was not to your liking. I must point out that this is not in law the basis upon which to make an appeal. An appeal must be made on the grounds that an order given was unjust and unfair and after reasoned analysis would result in such an unfair outcome that not to appeal it would be as heinous as to appeal wrongly. The order made on 24 March may not be to your liking, but such an appeal in the eyes of the court would be without foundation and a waste of the court's time."
"When we spoke on Friday last [ie, 12 May 2006] for 90 minutes, largely but not exclusively upon the HHJ Compston order, I understood that we were not pursuing the appeal issued by you on 7 April regarding that order. I note your points in the subsequent email.
I have reviewed the issues and the order in the light of the appeal as drafted. I have also discussed it briefly with Mr Cook, on a preliminary basis. Consequently my advice has not changed.
Our instructions and focus are and should be upon the cross-appeals of DJ Green's order. The applications and orders since then have basically gone towards issues of implementation. This is not to dismiss their importance and the impact upon you, however, you have instructed us to concentrate upon the vital order and the cross-appeals.
Turning briefly to deal with the HHJ Compston order I would comment upon the following numbered flaws within that order which you raised specifically "
"I know that you have been informed that should you not like an order then the only way to address the situation is to appeal it. There is nevertheless a process that needs to be applied. The point disagreed with cannot be argued against merely because of subjective dislike. Rather, it must be wrong in a legal context. Then a practical test must be applied is the appeal of value or will it advance my position. Considering the HHJ Compston order overall I advised it is not worthy of appeal "
The message then turns to deal with other matters relating to the cross-appeals.
"This matter will therefore be dismissed with costs for failure to comply with the court's directions unless a bundle complying in every respect with the Practice Direction and the bundle leaflet which you have been sent has been lodged with the Civil Appeals Office to arrive no later than 4 pm on 26 May 2006, or sufficient reasons provided in writing why that cannot be done. The order for dismissal will be made without a hearing and only in exceptional circumstances might further time be granted for compliance."
The letter is signed by Mr A Caton, Dismissal List Manager.
"Dear Richard,
Thank you for your email. I will meet you today as arranged.
When you rang last Friday, I understood it was to inform me that my appellant's notice had not been served, which worried me. You advised not to follow that appeal, but I discussed with you why I wanted the appeal served. At no point have I not wanted the appeal served. I still want the appeal served unless there is another way to deal with the history of hearings between 13.12.05 and 24.3.06 and how Mr Preston has misled the court over and over again. It is because of this appeal that I have instructed solicitors. It was my intention to serve myself, but thought it better that my solicitor prepare skeletal argument. I have just received a note from the court regarding this giving until 26.5.06 to do so. I have faxed to you, otherwise there is costs implication to me.
It is paramount as discussed in our meeting with Lisa Bolgar Smith that Mr Preston does not act as the conveyancer in this case. He has requested the deeds off Halifax and I do not know whether this has affected my mortgage offer from them and thus my appeal "
"We confirm that our client is withdrawing her appeal of the order of 30 September 2007.
Our counsel, Ian Cook of 1 Kings Bench Walk shall be lodging a position statement with the court by 4 pm on Monday stating that our client is withdrawing her appeal and that we shall seek to uphold the order of 30 September for the reasons DJ Green gave in her judgment."
"We note your client is withdrawing her appeal against the order of 30 September 2005. We expect all of our costs to be met as a result of you're (sic) withdrawal.
We presume your client is withdrawing her appeals against the other two orders as identified in our letter of 12 May but please confirm."
[bundle C, page 226]
"Further to your letter of even date we do not accept your position on costs and in any event this is not the appropriate time to discuss the same.
For clarification our client is not seeking to pursue her appeal or DJ Green's order of 30 September 2005 as set out in her notices of appeal and grounds. There were no separate appeals upon the legal representation and Andre Street issues to which you refer in your letter of 12 May 2006."
"When any party discontinues litigation they pay the costs of the other side that have been wasted. This a fundamental principle of our legal system.
As to the appeals lodged by your client she makes it very clear in the 21st April version that she is also appealing the two interlocutory orders that were reserved to the trial Judge. See page 72 of the appeal bundle. For the avoidance of doubt we ask once again for the confirmation sought."
"[counsel] Decision urgently needed re our appeal.
Sketch of ct approach to appeal (both his and ours).
a) re for appeal: appeal High Court Judge has to be satisfied that DJ decision was plainly wrong.
Formulation outside the reasonable bracket of possible outcomes.
No right answer in ancillary relief matters.
Was DJ plainly wrong or outside band of reasonable decisions.
Appeal Judge cannot say, if it were me I would do this and will do so.
New evidence is approached by test from case law.
Fresh evidence hard to adduce.
Parameters within which we work.
My clear view is your appeal has no prospect of success.
Should withdraw our appeal and spend time meeting his. (page 161/162)
(page 169) Courts do not have jurisdiction over CSA.
I will raise issue over conveyancer for £3,000!
Decision? Withdraw cross-appeals.
Reduce time estimate.
Maintain order.
Costs.
You will damage your appeal by arguing appeal.
Agreed to withdraw."
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO CARRY OUT THE CLIENT'S INSTRUCTIONS
"If a solicitor is retained in a civil action (it is immaterial whether it be an action at law or in equity), prima facie his contract is entire; it is a contract to carry the matter through to a conclusion. The result of this is that he has no right under the statute to send in his bill and insist upon payment until the conclusion of the business to conduct which he was retained."
"When a man goes to a solicitor and instructs him for the purpose of bringing or defending such an action, he does not mean to employ the solicitor to take one step and then give him fresh instructions to take another step and so on; he instructs the solicitor as a skilled person to act for him in the action, to take all the necessary steps into and to carry it on until the end. If the meaning of the retainer is that the solicitor is to carry on the action till the end, it necessarily follows that the action of a solicitor is an entire contract that is a contract to take all the steps which are necessary to bring the action to a conclusion.
I do not propose to go through all the cases cited but it seems to me that from time downwards it has been held that a solicitor cannot sue for his costs until his contract has been entirely fulfilled, unless the case is brought within some recognised exception to the general rule."
"26. [Lord Esher] listed as an exception where the client was not prepared to finance disbursements but expected the solicitor to do so out of his own pocket. He also appeared to contemplate that a lengthy and complicated Chancery action which might be divisible into stages could be the subject of successive or serial retainers.
"31. Mr Buxton acknowledges that I am bound by the general principle stated in Underwood. He argues that the Court of Appeal's authority is elderly and should be applied more flexibly to modern conditions. He says that there should be implied into the contractual relationship between solicitor and client such terms as "if there is a case we will take it to its conclusion" and "you as a client must act reasonably". While I can see that such terms may be desirable in the interests of solicitors to avoid just the sort of problem that these solicitors found themselves in, their implication is not necessary for the performance of the contract and I would not for my part be prepared to consider their incorporation by implication into a contract of retainer absent any express term to that effect.
32. There may come a case when the "entire contract" principle falls to be reviewed in the way Mr Buxton suggests, but I am of the clear view that this is not it. Until that case emerges it is dangerous, and for these purposes unnecessary, to attempt to depart from the principle, or to identify other examples of "just cause" for termination."
"She said she was too distraught to deal with it.
Refused to give me instructions.
Will call and talk to me about it tomorrow."
"14. Ambrose Appelbe have helped themselves to over £40k of my money from the sale of my house despite the fact that I disputed the amount they were claiming. Around £7k was added to my bill after they stopped acting for me. I was put in a very compromising situation when I was called to attend an unexpected hearing on 5/6/06 [the application made by Preston & Co] and told I had to sign a Sears Tooth agreement, in order for them to represent me that day within the hour. An agreement I knew nothing about before arriving in their office at short notice. I disagreed with the large interest rate of 15% and was told to seek advise (sic) from a solicitor next door to them, who understood the predicament I was in, and suggested I sign it but hang on to it and renegotiate. However James Freemantle after telling him this offered to carry my papers and would not give me back the Sears Tooth agreement, but told me instead he would not hand over to Ms Bolgar Smith before I had negotiated. However, he did hand the document over and Ms Bolgar Smith would not negotiate. James Freemantle also told me, as the other side's application was adjourned generally, and the court was not happy about the court application, I would get my costs back. However, that never happened and they did not even apply for them. 2 days later I became a litigant in person."
"Further to your fax of even date with regard to the application listed for tomorrow [8 June 2006] at 11.30 am, we hereby notify you that we are not instructed to attend on behalf of our client. Our client shall therefore be attending as a litigant in person."
" I am also distressed at having to pay the additional £5,000 ordered by HHJ Compston, again cutting into my maintenance. With regard the fees for the hearing of 5/6/06, I understand that you will be obtaining an order for Mr Preston to pay my costs and therefore there is still a costs hearing? However there is still the issue of the costs for the hearings leading up to the 24/3/06 that Mr Preston said in the last hearing that he was instructed by his client to give costs off me. One of my main concerns when I came to yourselves. This issue/appeal of HHJ Compston's order and the appeal was what I requested your assistance for at the outset and was quoted £25,000.
As the fees by your firm have risen well above the £25,000, please could you let me have a breakdown of the bills. In regard to the Sears Tooth agreement, you said you would hold the papers until I have discussed the interest as I was advised not to hand them over until I had discussed a better interest rate and had also strongly felt myself that 15% was too high. (I had secured the borrowings as a way of mortgage to facilitate my legal fees, but it is Mr Preston who prevents me from drawing down). A differential over base would be more normal "
"Regarding the £24,000 placed on account with us, it was stated to you at the start that we required £25,000 to be put on account. Due to your financial situation you were only able to provide £24,000. At no time was the figure of £25,000 a quote for the work to be done on your behalf, but merely the sum we asked for to be placed on account. As discussed we estimated that the appeal would cost at least this and maybe more. This can be seen from our client care letter of 24 April 2006. In the event the work involved was considerably more than anticipated and we also had to deal with the subsequent costs issues and applications for sale of the property.
As we had utilised all the funds on account and you are not in a position to provide further funds, as an exceptional case we agreed to continue to act under a Sears Tooth agreement. We discussed costs again in detail at the meeting prior to you signing the Sears Tooth agreement and advised you at that meeting of the costs outstanding plus an estimate of the ongoing cost. In respect of the Sears Tooth agreement, I would reiterate that the 15% interest is not negotiable. The Sears Tooth agreement was a necessity in order to ensure you were able to cover the costs of the work done on the appeal and subsequent to the same. You were advised independently by Simon Beccle before you signed the agreement.
Regarding your request for a breakdown of your bills I would be happy to arrange for this to be done, but I would have you note that this will take some time to prepare and I would have to charge you for this work, as is stated in our terms and conditions "
"I have received correspondence from Preston & Co stating they will be transferring the proceeds of sale of 40 Southway to another firm of solicitors.
As you are aware the Sears Tooth agreement entered into with you was for your benefit so that your legal costs could only be claimed once 40 Southway was sold.
In order for that to occur, I require your irrevocable authority that the monies required to settle your account with us, being £14,060.71 with monies on account of £350, may be settled in the manner dictated in the Sears Tooth.
Please therefore confirm your acceptance of the above by signing the enclosed authority."
Note 1 The bills numbers are: 14143, 14178, 14199, 14277, 14298, 14332, 14379, 14408, 14444, 14526, 14744, 15113. [Back] Note 2 The note says cost appeal, but this is obviously cross-appeal. [Back]