A former client has failed in his initial High Court appeal over more than £3 million in legal fees charged by London firm Howard Kennedy LLP.
Vishal Mehta challenged an earlier ruling by Costs Judge Whalan that his retainer with the firm permitted the delivery of interim statute bills. In Mehta v Howard Kennedy LLP [2026] EWHC 968 (KB), the court ruled that the Costs Judge was correct on the three contested issues before the court.
The decision reinforces the importance of clear retainer wording when lawyers seek to render interim statute bills under the Solicitors Act 1974.
Background to the Dispute
Mehta instructed Howard Kennedy in litigation after he became subject to a worldwide freezing order. Over an 11-month period, the firm delivered 24 invoices totalling approximately £3.124 million.
If classified as interim statute bills, these invoices trigger strict time limits for assessment under sections 70-72 of the Solicitors Act 1974. Thirteen of the bills had been paid more than 12 months before proceedings commenced, potentially barring any detailed assessment.
Mehta’s team, instructed by costs recovery specialists JG Solicitors, argued that a specific passage in the retainer prevented the invoices from qualifying as statute bills.
The clause reserved the firm’s right to revisit charges in a concluding bill if the “value” or “importance” of the underlying case was only realised at final settlement and had not been reflected in earlier invoices.
Counsel for Mehta contended that this qualification undermined the finality and completeness of the interim bills.
The High Court rejected that argument saying that the caveat was not relevant to the status of the interim bills. The retainer did not involve any conditional or contingent fee arrangement tied to a particular “success” outcome.
The judge also held that explanatory “notes” accompanying the retainer documents did not form part of the contractual terms.
The court noted that Mehta had accepted a retainer which expressly explained how invoices would be delivered and confirmed they would constitute statute bills. The invoices themselves reinforced this position.
Mehta also argued that certain payments had come from third-party sources, meaning he had not “paid” the bills himself. The court dismissed this as artificial saying payments made by third parties with the client’s knowledge and consent remain effective, the judge ruled.
