BL-2023-BRS-000024 - [2025] EWHC 2898 (Ch)

The next point of challenge is that the rates claimed exceed the guideline rates for London band 2. Two of the fee-earners are grade A, and for London band 2 since 1 January 2025 the guideline hourly rate for such fee-earners is £413. The rates claimed are £1,205 and £860 respectively. One of the fee-earners is grade B, and the London band 2 guideline hourly rate for such fee-earners since 1 January 2025 is £319. The rate claimed is £860. The other fee-earner is grade D, for which the London band 2 guideline hourly rate is now £153. The rate claimed is £350. Accordingly, the rates claimed for all the four fee-earners are in excess of the guidelines. Of course, they are just that, guidelines, and are not set in stone. But. as the Court of Appeal said, in relation to the 2021 guideline rates, in Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v LG Display Co Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 466, [6], “If a rate in excess of the guideline rate for solicitors' fees is to be charged to the paying party, a clear and compelling justification must be provided”. This point was reiterated in Athena Capital Services SICAV v Secretariat of State for the Holy See[2022] EWCA Civ 1061, [6]. It has been applied in many other decisions at first instance since. In the present case, no justification was advanced for the excessive rates claimed. I can see none. Accordingly, I will reduce the notional profit costs to take account of this.