One of the most frequently raised questions in fee disputes between solicitors and clients is whether the invoices issued are interim statute invoices, and therefore subject to the limitations outlined in Section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974. This issue was once again addressed in the case Topalsson GmbH v CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP ([2025] EWHC 118 (SCCO)), where the claimant sought a detailed assessment of 27 bills issued by the defendant. As all but the last eight invoices had been paid for over a year, the claimant argued that the defendant had not issued interim statute bills, and instead, the invoices should be treated as part of a single final bill.
Background
Topalsson GmbH instructed the defendant to provide legal services related to drafting a contract and handling litigation arising from the contract’s termination. The claimant received 27 disputed invoices from the defendant between August 2019 and May 2022. The claimant argued that these invoices were not interim statute bills, but rather part of a series of “Chamberlain” bills, intended as on-account bills leading to one final statute bill dated 7 June 2023. This distinction is critical because it affected the claimant’s entitlement to a detailed assessment. Under Section 70(4) of the Solicitors Act 1974, invoices paid for more than 12 months cannot be assessed. The court reviewed the retainer agreements and billing practices to determine if there was an express or implied agreement regarding interim statute billing.
Judgment
Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker concluded that the bills were not interim statute invoices, as there was no express agreement permitting such billing. The judge found that the invoices formed part of a running account, leading to a single final bill. As a result, the claimant was entitled to a detailed assessment under Section 70(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974.
Practical Implications
This judgment emphasises the importance of clear contractual terms concerning billing practices. Legal practitioners should ensure that retainer agreements explicitly define billing arrangements to avoid future disputes. The decision also underscores the court’s willingness to scrutinise solicitor billing practices and highlights the importance of costs estimates in determining whether special circumstances exist for an assessment, as outlined in Section 70(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974.
Conclusion
The court’s ruling in this case clarifies the distinction between interim statute bills and running account “Chamberlain” bills. It underscores the importance of clear agreements in retainer contracts, ensuring both parties are aware of the status of the invoices issued and the client’s entitlement to a detailed assessment under the Solicitors Act 1974.
Related People
