Court of Appeal rejects nullity challenge over unsigned indemnity box
The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) has dismissed an appeal by Birmingham City Council seeking to set aside a default costs certificate in long-running litigation with tenant Daniella Duffy.
In Daniella Duffy v Birmingham City Council [2026] EWCA Civ 146, handed down on 25 February 2026, the court ruled that a bill of costs signed by a solicitor is not invalid merely because the solicitor failed to tick the box expressly certifying compliance with the indemnity principle.
The substantive issue concerned whether the omission rendered the bill ineffective to commence detailed assessment proceedings under CPR 47.6. The Council argued that without express certification confirming that the costs claimed did not exceed those payable by the client, the bill was a nullity and incapable of supporting a default costs certificate.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justice Newey, Lord Justice Phillips and Lord Justice Nugee, rejected that submission.
Giving the lead judgment, Lord Justice Phillips held that while Practice Direction 47 requires appropriate certificates to be included in a bill of costs, the solicitor’s signature itself carries implicit confirmation of compliance with the indemnity principle. Relying on authorities including Bailey v IBC Vehicles Ltd and Gempride Ltd v Bamrah, the court reaffirmed that a solicitor signing a bill does so as an officer of the court and is trusted not to claim more than the client is liable to pay.
The court concluded that failure expressly to certify compliance was a defect, but not one that rendered the bill invalid or a nullity. Such errors fall within CPR 3.10, which provides that procedural errors do not invalidate proceedings unless the court so orders.
The dispute arose after the Council failed to serve points of dispute within 21 days of service of the claimant’s bill totalling £26,809.60. A default costs certificate was issued in January 2023. The Council initially challenged the certificate on grounds of defective service, but later sought to rely on the indemnity certification point.
The appeal was dismissed, and the default costs certificate remains in place. The Council retains the ability to pursue a discretionary application under CPR 47.12(2), but the court made no finding on its prospects.
The judgment emphasises that defects in a bill of costs are ordinarily addressed through points of dispute or discretionary relief, rather than by treating the bill as void from the outset.