Re Watling Roche, Lawyers' Bill of Costs

In the case of Re Watling Roche, Lawyers' Bill of Costs, the applicant, Karele Coutts (as next friend to Dani Mary-Anne Coutts), sought a declaration that a retainer agreement between her and her former solicitors, Messrs Watling Roche, was not fair or reasonable and sought an order that the agreement be set aside. Alternatively, the applicant sought an order reviewing the decision of the taxing officer who refused to tax a bill of costs dated 30 June 1998, delivered by the respondent. The applicant alleged that she was barely eighteen years old when she made the agreement, was denied the advice of her mother during negotiations, and was denied the opportunity of obtaining independent legal advice.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the refusal of the taxing officer to tax the bill by reason of lack of jurisdiction was justified and whether the power of the court to set aside the retainer agreement was valid. The court examined the arguments presented by the applicant, who maintained that the amended bill was still too high and that the revised bill was compiled by reference to the District Court scale of fees.

The court concluded that the taxing officer was correct in his opinion that the provisions of part 2 of the Legal Practitioners Act, upon which the applicant based her entitlement to taxation, had been repealed by the Civil Justice Reform Act 1997. The court also found that the applicant did not argue that the court had any power to order a taxation of costs apart from the provisions of part 2 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The court further determined that the inherent jurisdiction to control solicitors' charges may have been modified or abrogated by the Civil Justice Reform Act, but it did not express an opinion on this matter. Finally, the court ruled that the applicant was not entitled to the relief she sought, as the respondent had abandoned any rights it might have had under the retainer agreement to fix the quantum of its bill.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the notice of motion, finding that the applicant was adequately protected, and that no assessment of the respondent's bill would be affected by the terms of the retainer agreement.