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:

•
the express requirements of SA 1974, s 69
•
the ‘implicit’ requirements of form and content imposed by the common law, and
•
whether the solicitor was permitted to deliver a statute bill at the relevant time

For guidance on what a statute bill is, what

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Animals Act 1971—personal injury, degree of particularity and fundamental dishonesty (Boyd v Hughes)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The claimant failed to satisfy either limb of section 2(2)(a) of the Animals Act 1971 (AA 1971). The court held that the degree of ‘particularity’ to be applied in determining the likelihood of injury and likelihood of severe injury must not be so high as to mandate a conclusion or too general to render the assessment artificial. For the purposes of AA 1971, s2(2)(b) the court found that where the horse simply saw or heard something or thought it saw or heard something in its environment and shied, the claimant could not prove the horse was reacting to a perceived threat, and therefore there was no ‘characteristic’ behaviour. Alternatively, if there was, then the characteristic behaviour was not referable to a particular time or circumstance, and the claim would still fail under AA 1971, s 2(2)(b). The court held that the claimant had dishonestly embellished the extent of her injuries, but due to her disclosing certain facts (prior to the defendant’s disclosure of surveillance material) and given such dishonesty going only to the value of PSLA, that dishonesty was not fundamental, by a narrow margin. Written by Georgina Crawford, barrister at Ropewalk Chambers.

DHSC announces integration of NHS England into department under healthcare reforms

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has announced that NHS England will be reintegrated into the department, reversing the 2012 reorganisation that established it as an independent body. The reform, led by Health Secretary Wes Streeting, aims to reduce administrative duplication and bureaucracy. Sir James Mackey has been appointed as Transition CEO to oversee the immediate transfer of NHS England functions to DHSC, with Dr Penny Dash serving as incoming NHS England chair during the transition period. The changes are intended to generate annual savings in the hundreds of millions through reduced administrative costs.

The limitations of (non) material contribution (Tuffin v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The claimant underwent an amputation to her leg in 2018 as a result of serious and chronic pain. She alleged that this was the causal result of a negligent failure to proscribe an anticoagulant (and consequential DVT) following a spinal surgery in 2015. The defendant argued that the claimant suffered from Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) which was unrelated to DVT, and in fact stemmed from non-negligent complications arising out of the spinal surgery itself. The defendant’s experts gave evidence that there was no known case of DVT leading to CRPS, while the claimant’s experts held that such a link was indeed possible, albeit rare. The court held that there was no expert opinion that DVT made a more than negligible contribution to the claimant’s symptoms which necessitated the amputation, and so dismissed the claim in relation to the amputation. Written by Thomas Mallon, barrister at Henderson Chambers.

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—13 March 2025

This week’s edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes an analysis of a Court of Appeal decision which awarded damages to a claimant in a psychiatric injury secondary victim claim in relation to the 1982 Hyde Park bombing. We also consider an interesting High Court decision which looked at the illegality defence and the liability of an insurer of a stolen motorbike and a High Court judgment on the jurisdiction of the English court in a claim brought by football fans who were injured at the 2022 UEFA Champions League final in Paris. In addition, we have our usual roundup of other news, cases and New Law Journal articles of interest.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News