A costs judge has ruled he is not willing to reopen a dispute between a divorce client and her former solicitors.
Costs Judge Leonard dismissed an application for extension of time to appeal his ruling from earlier this year in favour of London firm Kleyman & Co Solicitors.
In doing so, the judge rejected the client’s assertion that the firm’s director Stephanie Kleyman had been misleading when she gave evidence in court.
‘I regard it as unfair to characterise Ms Kleyman’s written and oral evidence as misleading,’ said the judge. ‘I am satisfied that Ms Kleyman was simply stating (and continues to state) what she believes to be the case. Nor was the court misled by Ms Kleyman.’
The firm had represented divorce client Clare Griffin for more than a year in connection with proceedings for financial provision. She contested the final bill of around £124,000 which was well in excess of the initial £83,000 estimate.
In May, Leonard found that while the estimates provided by the firm were inadequate in some respects, Griffin’s conduct throughout the course of the retainer had been ‘unreasonable’, making it inevitable that costs would go beyond what had been estimated. Detailed assessment proceedings were due to take place this week.
Griffin asked the court for an extension of time to appeal, pending delivery of a copy of an email delivering an invoice in August 2020. She alleged that this invoice was not delivered until a month later.
The court heard that the invoice issue was raised two months before this year’s hearing to decide whether the estimates were reasonable.
Kleyman said in a witness statement at the time that it would be disproportionately difficult to locate the August 2020 email. Griffin’s lawyers now argued that Kleyman had made an ‘unequivocal assertion’ that she knew about the email but did not exhibit it as evidence. It was submitted her evidence was misleading as she stated clearly that the email had been sent, and that this would be relevant to any complaint Griffin might wish to make to the Legal Ombudsman or SRA.
The judge said Griffin was putting nothing in her appeal application that could not have been said before the hearing, and it was too late to make new points now.
He added it ‘did not cross my mind’ that Kleyman had tried to mislead the court about when bills had been sent. The application was dismissed.
