PT-2022-BRS-000100 - [2025] EWHC 2743 (Ch)

The next question is assessment. The application lasted less than one day, and so the general rule is that there should be a summary assessment: CPR PD 44 paragraph 9(2)(b). Both parties ask me to assess the costs summarily, and I see no reason not to do so. The defendants have produced two statements of costs. The first is for the hearing on 9 May 2025, and it is dated the previous day. It is for a total of £21,273 plus applicable VAT. This includes £12,984 in profit costs (of which £6,869 are in respect of work done on documents) and £7,750 are in respect of counsel’s fees. They have also produced a second statement of costs, stated to be in respect of the same hearing, though dated 4 July 2025 (when it was filed), for a total of £10,882.50, again plus applicable VAT. This includes profit costs of £7,382.50 (of which £3,832.50 was for work done on the documents) and counsel’s fees of £3,500. I infer from the date of the statement and the dates given for the work done on documents that it relates to work done after the hearing and until the written submissions were filed. By way of comparison, the claimant has a single statement of costs, updated 20 June 2025 (the date it was filed), to include events after the hearing, in the total sum of £35,712.96, plus applicable VAT, including £24,233 profit costs (of which £15,943 were in respect of work done on documents) and counsel’s fees of £10,876.66.

I should say that, in the written submissions, both sides criticise the statement of costs prepared by the other side, on the basis that hourly rates exceed the guideline rates, there is over reliance upon partner time and, fees are not reasonable and proportionate. I note however that the two statements of the defendants in total are for a sum which is less than that in the single statement of the claimant, and this although the defendants were the applicants in the application (who usually make the running and have more to do) and the claimant was the respondent.

First there is the question of hourly rates for solicitors. The defendants’ solicitors are based in Huntingdon, which falls within national band 2. The defendants claim for solicitors in Grade A and Grade C. The guideline hourly rates for such solicitors in those bands since January 2025 are £282 and £196 respectively. The rates claimed by the defendants’ solicitors are £350 and £345 for grade A and £200 for grade C. No justification has been advanced for charging in excess of the guideline rates, at least in respect of grade A fee earner time, and so some reduction must be made to reflect that.

Secondly there is the question of delegation of work to appropriate fee earners, so that a more expensive fee earner is not used for something that could be done by someone less expensive. This is usually manifested by excessive use of partner time. In my judgment the work has been delegated properly here, and the claimant’s complaint is not made out. There is also a specific complaint about the amount of time needed to review and comment on the claimant’s further cost submissions in reply and I think there is some merit in that. I will make a small reduction on that account.

Considering the reductions indicated, and bearing in mind that this assessment is a broadbrush exercise, I will therefore reduce the defendants’ solicitors’ profit costs to £19,500 in total, plus applicable VAT. The disbursements (of £11,250 plus VAT for counsel, £313 court fee and £226 other expenses) will remain as shown. Although the amounts claimed by the defendants in respect of this application are high, I think that that is simply a reflection of the degree of hostility and intransigence which has characterised this litigation throughout, leading to the need for more lawyer time to be spent on the matter. It is the price of being difficult. Overall, I do not think that the costs claimed are disproportionate to the importance and value of the exercise to the parties.