lawrota.com

Riverbrooke Solicitors Ltd, a prominent London firm, found itself in a legal quagmire when they attempted to charge a former client, Sylvia Olukoya, an additional £145,000 nearly three years after what seemed to be the resolution of their costs dispute. The dispute originated from Riverbrooke’s involvement in advising Olukoya on an employment tribunal claim, with the initial fee estimate ranging between £6,000 and £10,000, contingent on the case’s complexity.

The conflict escalated, leading Olukoya to lodge a complaint with the legal ombudsman. Eventually, the firm agreed to send her a final bill that conformed to the terms of an informal resolution, reflecting the charges outlined in the initial client care letter. This final invoice was settled in March 2020, seemingly closing the chapter on the costs dispute.

However, two years and nine months later, Riverbrooke Solicitors Ltd re-emerged, delivering a surprising ‘revised final invoice’ for an extra £145,000. In response, Olukoya filed an application for the assessment of the bill, leading the matter to be heard in the High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) in July.

The High Court, presided over by Costs Judge Leonard, delivered a decisive verdict. It deemed the ‘revised final invoice’ to be of no value. The court’s rationale rested on the understanding that the informal resolution facilitated by the ombudsman, which restricted costs and disbursements to the initial £13,000, had legally bound both parties. Consequently, Riverbrooke Solicitors Ltd lacked the right to issue a second invoice and failed to obtain the necessary permission to revise the initial invoice, which had been a conclusive, statutory bill.

Leonard emphasized that the determination of a binding contract between parties and its terms hinged on what was communicated between them. The court’s judgment solidified the fact that Olukoya and Riverbrooke had indeed entered into a legally binding contract when they accepted and enacted the informal resolution mediated by the legal ombudsman.

This landmark ruling sends a powerful message about the sanctity of contracts in the legal field and underscores the importance of adhering to the terms agreed upon between clients and solicitors. It serves as an enlightening case study for law students and practitioners alike, illustrating the consequences of attempting to circumvent binding agreements in the legal realm.

In summary, the High Court’s decision in Olukoya v Riverbrooke Solicitors Ltd serves as a cautionary tale, emphasizing the legal significance of binding contracts and the responsibilities of solicitors in client relationships. This case underscores the enduring principles that govern legal agreements and offers valuable insights for both aspiring and practicing lawyers.

#LegalDispute #ClientBilling #HighCourtRuling #LegalOmbudsman #Solicitors #BindingContract