The applicant submitted that he was entitled to an itemised bill since he was a “third party payer” pursuant to s 301 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (“the Act”). The respondent argued the entitlement to request an itemised bill was dependent upon the satisfaction of the condition specified in the Act – namely that the person had been provided with a lump sum bill – and without meeting that condition the applicant would be unable to seek an itemised bill. The judge (North J) held that “[a] right to an itemised bill is not mandated by the Act”, and formed the view that the application must fail because of lack of evidence that the law firm had rendered a lump sum bill to the applicant, which was held to be a pre-requisite to an application under the Act.
David Chesterman appeared for the respondent, instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth.
The judgment is published here.