An SRA-regulated solicitor, who settled a civil claim against a self-styled “leading provider of specialist mortgages and property finance“, and was then hit by a legal costs bill, is challenging them at the High Court.
The court was told that Mr Andrew Jonathan Milne had made accusations of “fraud and dishonestly” against solicitors involved in a property transaction.
It was explained that the underlying litigation was filed after Mr Milne had advanced all the money to repay a mortgage over a property he owned, but that he had been hit with an extra fee to redeem the charge – a form of legal protection over the property. Milne told the court that “the £2,844 was never invoiced by the defendants’ solicitors to the defendant and has never been paid, it follows that it could never have been secured by the charge“.
Mr Smith, the barrister appearing on behalf of the defendant West One Loans Limited, said that they “saw fit to attempt to scotch matters in the most cost effective way forward” by offering a settlement to Mr Milne.
Mr Milne says he accepted the offer of a settlement but “was horrified to receive the bill that is before you today“.
It was this bill that was the focus of the hearing before the Senior Courts Costs Office today.
The underlying claims were never tested in court and the defendants, having filed a defence, should be taken as having expressly denied them.
Mr Smith described these allegations, if he could “encapsulate in one word, well two words, as fraud and dishonestly” as “somewhat fantastical“.
Reporting by Daniel Cloake
One ground of resistance to the total bill was said to be the charging of VAT, Milne reneged on this challenge saying “they insist their client is not registered for VAT and I accept that so we move to point 4“.
A challenge to whether the defendants had fulfilled a requirement to file an electronic version of a costs document at a previously aborted meeting was dismissed by the judge who found that that specific aspect of the litigation was “an inter-parties process” adding “you’ve not made an application but just raised it orally now“.
Costs Judge Mark Whalan, on the subject of “a relatively short period” of charged interest, ruled that “the defendant’s entitlement to interest will be disallowed between 5th May 2023 to 16th June 2023 inclusive“.
The court heard a short discussion as to whether Mr Milne could argue a point that was not in his written pleadings but had only appeared in a witness statement.
Judge Whalan told Milne his “witness statement was served last week setting out a number of allegations, you need permission [to deploy these new points] because they are not in your pleadings“.
The judge said the new point “raised potentially serious matters” and that he would “not give [Milne] permission to raise matters not in his pleadings” as the “pleadings closed 6 months ago and this has been in my list for a while“.
Whether the pleadings could be construed as supporting the new argument Judge Whalan said “I can’t possibly interpret the pleaded case (in that way)“. The request for documents relating to this new point was “a classic fishing expedition” and “we don’t entertain fishing exercises in detailed assessments“.
Mr Milne also challenged the various rates that the defendants solicitors were charging. Milne asserted that all the work “should all have been done by a grade B – two 30 minute telephone hearings and a remote hearing, followed by a mediation. Any grade B should have been able to do that“.
Mr Smith replied drawing attention to Mr Milne’s initial cost budget of £1.45m, yes million, said to have been based on an hourly rate of £450.
We were told that a previous judge had certified this amount as “wholly disproportionate” when mentioned at a hearing in May 2020.
Mr Milne defended the costs budget by explaining that “a large number” of the other apparently overcharged customers had contacted him, and at that point he had “contemplated a group litigation order seemed a fair way to help everybody“.
The judge did not depart from the rates mentioned, having said they were “pretty modest‘, apart from to reduce the grade D rate from £180 down to £165.
Mr Smith critised Mr Milne’s conduct in the litigation and “the vigour by which the claimant pursued the litigation”. He had referred to the “flavour” of language used in the correspondence adding “all of that is hard work to respond to“.
This is not the first time Mr Milne has faced criticism of his conduct – read: ‘Solicitor sent “disgraceful and inexcusable” communications in £40k property dispute, court finds‘ for more details.
The mouseinthecourt only attended the morning session of the hearing which was listed to continue into the afternoon and the following day.
Case Number: SC-2023-BTP-000853
Milne v West One Loans Limited
Court 93 RCJ
Before Costs Judge Whalan sitting in the Senior Courts Costs Office
05/03/2024 10.30am
Mouse in the Court 