Application by claimant for permission to appeal judge's decision that certain bills that the claimant had sent to the defendant were interim bills and not statute bills, and that the defendant was entitled to detailed assessment of the bills was refused as the judge's findings were well considered, rational and supported by the evidence.Application by the claimant ('C') for permission to appeal a decision of a Master on 19 December 2002 in which the Master held that certain bills that C had sent to the defendant ('D'), its client, were interim bills and not statute bills and that D was entitled to detailed assessment of the bills. The Master further held that if the bills were not interim bills there were special circumstances within the meaning of s.70(3) Solicitors Act 1974 that justified assessment of the bills. The special circumstances included, inter alia, that the letter of retainer between the parties failed to deal with the calculation of legal costs, the disparity between the estimated legal costs and the costs as billed. In the present case C applied for permission to appeal and submitted that the Master had erred in law in that: (i) he misapplied the law to the facts of the present case; and (ii) there was fresh evidence, which supported its case that there was an express agreement between the claimant and the defendant for the payment of interim statutory bills.HELD: (1) Permission to appeal was refused, as there was no real prospect of success. The judge's findings were well considered, rational and supported by the evidence and he had properly considered the relevant cases. (2) The evidence that C sought to introduce was available to C at the hearing before the Master. C could not seek to rely upon it at this stage in proceedings. (Penningtons (A Firm) v Abedi (2000) considered)Application refused.