SCCO orders “somewhat obstructive” Dentons to produce file for inspection

Judge says firm neither wanted to open up file nor provide detailed response to PoDs

The Senior Courts Costs Office has ordered Dentons to provide its file for inspection as part of an ongoing solicitor and client dispute worth more than £2m, saying the global law firm had been “somewhat obstructive”.

Costs Judge Nagalingam rejected Dentons’ arguments that the application was defective and that he should not exercise his discretion to make the order.

He was also sceptical about the amount of time and cost that Dentons said would be involved in preparing the file for inspection.

The judge observed in Diagnostics.Ai Ltd v Dentons UK & Middle East LLP [2025] EWHC 2071 (SCCO) that the parties had hitherto worked collaboratively to progress the matter but as a result of agreeing orders by consent, no inspection stage was directed prior to service of points of dispute.

The points of dispute ran to 72 pages but the replies were only four pages long in seeking to address preliminary points only.

The claimant sought an order for inspection of Dentons’ files “in relation to the work described in the bills” so as to assist with settlement negotiations or prepare for the detailed assessment, “as well as narrowing any issues or disputed items as far as possible”.

Judge Nagalingam said Dentons had adopted an “all or nothing response” but he was not persuaded by any of its arguments on discretion.

“Whilst I accept that the breakdowns of costs descend into some detail regarding work done on documents, there are also large amounts of time in the main body of the bill where it is only clear what date the work was done and how long it took.”

The fact that it would take some time to fillet the papers for documents which the claimant or their lawyer was not entitled to see was “not of itself justification to deny an opportunity for inspection”.

The judge was not impressed by the reasons given against ordering inspection, such as that some emails and documents from other client matters were on the file in error, and that it would take a long time to do. “One would not ordinarily expect a practice of the defendant’s stature to keep disorganised files,” he said.

Even if he were to accept the higher of Dentons’ estimated costs of inspection, they were still “dwarfed” by the fees in dispute. “I also observe that those same costs would by and large be incurred in preparing the file for detailed assessment.”

Judge Nagalingam continued: “[A] refusal to agree to inspection in combination with a refusal to provide any response to the item by item objections does not serve the overriding objective and in my view makes the requirement for a very lengthy detailed assessment hearing inevitable.

“In other words, I consider the defendant’s stance and conduct to be somewhat obstructive whilst claiming in correspondence a desire to compromise.”

He went on to reject Dentons’ argument that the application was defective. It was not seeking inspection of the entire file, as was submitted, nor asserting any right to inspect documents which were the solicitor’s property.

“The claimant is very clear that they are only seeking inspection limited to the work described in the bill. That is work for which the defendant has either already been paid for or otherwise holds sufficient client monies to discharge any balance following a detailed assessment of fees. Further, and in any event, leading counsel has confirmed the defendant is not seeking to exercise any lien over its papers.

“As to directions in Solicitors Act assessments ‘often’ providing for inspection, the defendant presents no evidence as to why they say such orders are ‘invariably made by consent’.”

The fact that the claimant omitted a reference to part 31 in its N244 was not “fatal to the application”, he added.

On jurisdiction, he continued: “In my view, the Court of Appeal in Edwards has confirmed that the court’s powers under CPR 31 may be utilised to order disclosure/inspection in solicitor-own client assessments.” The court’s general powers of management under CPR rule 3.1(2)(p) could also be used.

Judge Nagalingam was also not impressed by Dentons’ criticism that the claimant had not made “any attempt to identify the particular issues raised by the points of dispute for which it is said that inspection is required”.

This line of argument “completely ignores the fact that the replies are limited to the preliminary points only, and run to just 4 pages despite a claim for fees exceeding £2m and points of dispute with a combined length of 72 pages.

“Had this been an application for inspection pre-points of dispute, the obvious answer would be that inspection is required in order to identify or narrow the issues. In this instance, the point of dispute provided the defendant with an opportunity to narrow the issues. The defendant’s stance has been to reject that opportunity at the replies stage, and then to frustrate the alternative of permitting inspection.”

Rejecting Dentons’ suggestion that the application was a “tactical” move, Judge Nagalingam said the parties were at “an impasse” and the inspection order was justified.

The costs of the inspection were to be costs in the assessment, except for the cost of isolating for inspection copies of documents already in the claimant’s possession, while he ordered Dentons to pay the costs of the application for inspection.

Shaman Kapoor (instructed by Grosvenor Law) for the claimant. Jamie Carpenter KC (instructed by Dentons) for the defendant.