Won court case. Why do I have to pay fees to solicitor?

M

MandaC

Registered User
Messages
1,784
Sorry for jumping on the bandwagon for this one but have a query. Person engaged a Solicitor instead of going through PIAB. Case not settled through PIAB but now 5 years later has just been settlment agreed. Person got a settlement plus their costs paid. Does this mean all their costs should be paid. Solicitor has told client that there is a small bill still due to him (approx. 1500) Is this usually covered through the costs?

Are we entitled to ask for the list of fees (payable both by us and other side), even though the other side are paying? Is it advisable to do this.

Thanks
 
Re: solicitors fees for personal injury claim work

MandaC said:
Person engaged a Solicitor instead of going through PIAB. Case not settled through PIAB but now 5 years later has just been settlment agreed.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear on this. You don't engage a solicitor "instead of" going through PIAB.

Since 2004, a person with a personal injury claim must go through PIAB, with some few exceptions.

Many choose to use a solicitor to process their claim, but there is absolutely no need to do so in the vast majority of cases.

The company against which they are claiming may not consent to PIAB dealing with the case, in which case you have to go to court.

If either party are not happy with PIAB's assessment, then they can reject it and go to court.
 
Re: solicitors fees for personal injury claim work

Brendan said:
Just to be clear on this. You don't engage a solicitor "instead of" going through PIAB.

Since 2004, a person with a personal injury claim must go through PIAB, with some few exceptions.

Many choose to use a solicitor to process their claim, but there is absolutely no need to do so in the vast majority of cases.

The company against which they are claiming may not consent to PIAB dealing with the case, in which case you have to go to court.

If either party are not happy with PIAB's assessment, then they can reject it and go to court.
Click to expand...

Brendan, what I meant by this is person engaged a Solicitor from the outset instead of going through PIAB directly themselves.

Sorry, I should have been clearer.

It was a complex case which from the get go was never going to be settled through the PIAB assessment process as there were ongoing injuries.

Sure enough, following the year through the PIAB process, PIAB themselves were unable to assess and released the case to go to Court.

Having worked through the PIAB process, unless the case is very straightforward, I would advise the individual to engage the services of a Solicitor.
 
The additional bill may be appropriate. It will depend upon the work done.

From the courts website:

PARTY AND PARTY COSTS

In costs between party and party one does not
get full indemnity for costs incurred against the
other. The principle to be considered in relation
to party and party costs is that you are bound
in the conduct of your case to have regard to
the fact that your adversary may in the end
have to pay your costs. You cannot indulge in
a ‘luxury of payment’; ....

SOLICITOR AND CLIENT COSTS

Solicitor and client costs are those costs that a client is
obliged to pay his solicitor which are not recoverable party
and party costs.
The courts have held that the following distinction is made
between party and party and solicitor and client costs in an
action:
“The costs of the Plaintiff as against the party
do not mean all the costs he has incurred but
all the costs he has incurred by the act of the
defendant. That is the difference between party
and party and solicitor and client costs - e.g. it
may be reasonable to have several
consultations but it does not follow he is to get
them all against the other party.
 
Solicitor said costs would be in the region of approx 1,200, so not a huge amount. My query just relates to why, if costs are agreed covered by the other side, that there is still a bill to the client. Basically, MOB, it seems like these will be the non recoverable party costs. Am interested in what is the distinction.

Secondly, even though costs are covered by the other side, is it advisable to ask for a copy of the overall bill?

Will state also, that have no problem with the Solicitor or his work, it was an awkward case that would not have been settled through PIAB.

I am just looking to know what would be the norm, before I ask Solicitor.
 
Reading through the "PARTY AND PARTY COSTS" vs "SOLICITOR AND CLIENT COSTS" post above here is what struck me :

A lay-person initiating or defending a legal action needs to consult with their solicitor a number of times prior to settlement of the matter. Some of these consultations are unnecessary and have no connection with the disputed matter, as decided arbitrarily by the solicitor. The solicitor fails to inform the client of this at the time, but bills this time separately once the matter is resolved and "costs" are awarded.

The ironic thing here is that the relevance of any consultation to the dispute is decided by solicitors and this ability and power to distinguish the relevant from the irrelevant is granted to them on the back of a court case tried by lawyers in front of other lawyers.

It seems that MandaC's solicitor was prescient and was able to accurately predict the cost of time dedicated to meeting with MandaC on matters unconnected with the case at hand in advance.
 
Bronte said:
Nothing against you MOB but what is that in plain English?
Click to expand...

Not being short about it Bronte - but there are ample explanatory leaflets and other resources there to explain how legal costs work. I was just quoting an extract to give people a starting point for googling\reasearching themselves. I probably should have posted links.

Legal costs are complex. There is an entire separate discipline ( legal costs accountants) who deal only with this niche.

It would achieve little for me to post a 'layman's guide to legal costs' - there is plenty of reading material already available online for anyone who needs to research the matter.
 
Why is it necessary for legal costs to be so complex? To be beyond the understanding of most people. Why is it not clearcut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top