Analysis
The claimant applied for detailed assessment of the defendant’s costs incurred in the administration of a deceased’s estate under s71(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974.
Ann Brealey died on 15 April 2014. Her will left the claimant as the main beneficiary. It named her brother, Peter Hayward, and Robin Peter Shepherd, a solicitor, as the executors and trustees of her will. The executors instructed the defendant firm to administer the deceased’s estate. Mr Shepherd was one of the two partners in that firm. The defendant’s bills for the administration of the estate had been paid by the executors.
The claimant considered the defendant’s charges (which, including the costs of administration, were claimed to be equal to one third of the assets of the estate) to be too high and brought proceedings for the assessment of the defendant’s bills accordingly.
Held, that the scope of the challenges that may be made by a beneficiary of a deceased’s estate applying for assessment of costs under Solicitors Act 1974, s71(3) is limited in the same way as an application for assessment by a third party liable to pay costs under s71(1) of that Act
The decision of the Court of Appeal in Tim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump LLP [2011] was not restricted to applications under s71(1) and could not be distinguished on the facts of this case. It was significant that there was an independent executor of the estate and a second partner in the defendant firm who was not an executor, so that it could not be said that the defendant had simply retained itself and agreed to pay its own bills. The scope of the challenges the claimant could bring to the defendant’s bills was accordingly limited to the ‘blue-pencil’ test approach derived from Tim Martin, which precluded challenges based on the amount of the charges alone. Hare-Brown v Trent [2011] doubted and distinguished. Tim Martin applied.
JUDGMENT COSTS JUDGE ROWLEY: Introduction [1] The detailed assessment hearing on 3 February 2021 was adjourned by me until 10 May 2021 so that the parties could consider the effect, if any, of the Court of Appeal decision of Tim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump LLP [2011] EWCA Civ 1574 (‘Tim Martin’) on the …Continue reading "Brealey v Shepherd & Co [2022] WTLR 17"