Monthly Legal Costs Update – June 2026
Here, in Kain Knight Costs Lawyers’ regular monthly legal costs update, we focus on those cases which we believe are likely to have a practical relevance for its members. We welcome feedback and if there is an area, topic or case you would like us to address, please let us know.
This June 2026 update has been written by Nick McDonnell and Colin Campbell.
On Wednesday 13 May 2026, Lord Justice Lewison, Lady Justice Andrews and Lord Justice Warby sitting with Senior Costs Judge Rowley, in the Court of Appeal, heard the second appeal in yet another Solicitors Act 1974 costs case – BDB Pitmans LLP v Barnes. The dispute concerns whether the solicitor-client retainer constituted a “contentious business agreement” (CBA) under sections 59–61 of the 1974 Act.
Barnes (represented by JG Solicitors) argued that, because the agreement was a CBA, the solicitors could not sue directly for fees and instead had to seek enforcement under section 61. Both Judge Somerville at first in instance and HHJ Davies on first appeal found in favour of the solicitor firm and held that a valid CBA requires certainty as to charging arrangements. The retainer in Barnes, it was found, lacked sufficient certainty because it allowed variable fee earners, unspecified charging factors, and future rate increases.
Accordingly, the agreement was not a CBA and the solicitors’ Part 7 claim could proceed. On second appeal, whilst judgment was reserved, the Lords and Lady Justices did not appear convinced by the appellant’s submissions, giving the strong sense that JG’s appeal would be dismissed and both decisions below upheld.
Another Solicitors Act 1974 case.
In Mehta v Howard Kennedy LLP [2026] EWHC 968 (KB), the defendant solicitors, acting for the claimant in proceedings involving a worldwide freezing order, delivered 24 invoices to him worth £3,124,674.04. If the invoices were interim statutory bills which were subject to the time limits in s.70 Solicitors Act 1974, they could not be referred to the court for assessment. Kimblin J upheld the decision below that the invoices were statutory and did not comprise a series of interim invoices delivered as part of a bill which became ‘final’ with the delivery of the last invoice.
The Terms of Business stated clearly that:
(i) “each bill issued to you is a final bill covering the total charge for the work carried out within the stated period”, that (ii) “each bill has the status of a statute bill unless otherwise stated” and (iii) referred to the solicitor’s right to sue, so no assessment could be ordered. Nor were there any special circumstances under CPR 70(3) such that it would be just to order an assessment.
There was nothing irregular about payments being made by a third or non-chargeable party, so long as that happened with the knowledge and consent of the client, which it had. The Claimant had received regular, itemised invoices with detailed accounts of the work done and so understood his ongoing liability. An additional point about whether the retainer was a Contentious Business Agreement within the meaning of ss59 to 63 of the 1974 Act was stayed pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal appeal in Barnes v BDP Pitmans LLP (see above).
In Turk v Legal Aid Agency [2026] EWCA Civ 469 the question for the Court of Appeal was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to make a “Recovery of Defence Costs Order” (“RDCO”) under the Criminal Legal Aid (Recovery of Defence Costs Orders) Regulations 2013 (the “Recovery Regulations”), against the appellant (“Mr Turk”), who was the defendant in civil contempt proceedings and had been sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.
He had obtained criminal legal aid in the committal proceedings, despite the civil nature of those proceedings. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the Legal Aid Agency (“LAA”) sought an RDCO. The judge below ordered Mr Turk to pay the LAA £392,823,70 being the costs of his representation before the High Court. On appeal, Mr Turk failed in his submission that the judge erred in finding that “criminal proceedings before any court other than the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court” in Regulation 2 included civil contempt proceedings.
The Regulation did so, and neither the alleged anomalies in the treatment of acquitted defendants, nor the historical context of recovery of defence costs orders, provided a sufficient contrary intention to displace that plain meaning. It was perfectly coherent that someone accused of contempt of court in the High Court and facing a prison sentence of up to two years, was able to access funding at the outset to defend themselves, but on terms that they must repay it, to the extent that they could afford to do so, at the end of the proceedings, leaving them, if successful, to seek to recover their costs from the unsuccessful applicant.
It followed that Mr Turk’s appeal was dismissed.
O’Boyle v Wallis [2026] EWHC 951 (Ch) involved an award of indemnity basis costs made against the daughter of her deceased father in proceedings in which she had been appointed under CPR 19.12 as representative of his estate. The issue for Andrew Twigger KC to decide was whether she should be liable to pay costs on the indemnity basis following the action being struck out, including those before her appointment.
The judge held that the court below had made an error of principle in having equated a representative appointed pursuant to CPR 19.12 with a Personal Representative, thereby regarding the daughter as personally liable for whatever costs were payable by the estate, as a matter of law. In addition, it did not accord with the overriding objective for her to be held personally liable for costs prior to her appointment to represent the estate in the proceedings on 14 March 2025. She was in no way the cause of those costs.
It followed that she should not have been ordered to pay costs before that date. Thereafter the costs would be paid by her on the standard basis as her conduct of the proceedings had not been unreasonable to the high degree required to take it outside the “norm”.
In Friend v Friend Media Technology Systems Ltd [2026] EWHC 1056 (KB), Sweeting J dealt with “consequentials” on a summary judgment application. On the claimant’s case, neither party obtained summary judgment or strike out, and both parties advanced competing constructions concerning Clause 19.4 of an investment Agreement, on which each had succeeded in part and failed in part, and that, in those circumstances, there should be no order as to costs.
For the defendant, it was submitted that the position was straightforward: the summary judgment application had been dismissed in its entirety and none of the relief he sought, including payment of £307,641.69 claimed, so the Defendant should receive its costs pursuant to CPR 44.2. Sweeting J held although the Claimant had been unsuccessful in obtaining summary judgment, he had succeeded on an important issue of contractual construction.
Whilst the Defendant was to be regarded as the overall successful party on the application, its success was not complete. The Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs, subject to a reduction to reflect the important issue of construction and the mixed outcome more generally. To reflect that and the high level of the Defendant’s costs, on a summary assessment, £89,400 was appropriate against a claim for £149,000.
Finally, another lesson in the consequences of failing to obtain authority to act for your clients.
In Sergio Andrade Cardoso v Salic (UK) Ltd [2026] EWHC 1094 (Ch), Pogust Goodhead Solicitors had issued proceedings on behalf of a group of people in Brazil who were affected by contamination following a ship sinking. They did so based upon the Powers of Attorney written in Portuguese. However, those Powers had merely given authority to the local Brazilian lawyers to act on their behalf in Brazil; both in court in Brazil or out of court. The Powers had not given the firm authority to commence proceedings outside Brazil.
It followed, according to Bright J, that the solicitors had been correct in agreeing to the proceedings being struck out. That came at a price however: the judge ordered the solicitors to make a payment on account of £900,000 of costs to the defendant, pending detailed assessment of the balance of their costs.
As always, these are a selection of the principal recent cases which are likely to be of use to practitioners and if any further information is required, please contact either Nick McDonnell or Colin Campbell at Nick.McDonnell@kain-knight.co.uk or Colin.Campbell@kain-knight.co.uk
