![[2025] EWHC 2426 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
COSTS
The order of 7 July 2025 gives judgment for costs against the Defendant. There has been no argument that cost should be assessed on the indemnity basis and accordingly I order that costs be paid on the standard basis.
I have reviewed the statement of costs within the bundle filed by the Claimant. The total amount claimed, £26,249.04, includes interest of £2999.84 and court fees of £8,250. The Claimant could not avoid paying these. The balance of fees for solicitors and counsel mostly fall comfortably within the range of what is reasonable and proportionate for a claim of this nature, even bearing in mind that any doubt in that regard is to be resolved in favour of the Defendant, as the paying party. I do not consider the hourly rates to be excessive for work of this nature.
However, I consider that some of the work on documents is beyond that which is reasonable, bearing in mind both he necessary work and the reasonable time that a fee earner paid at this rate would spend on the work:
Item 6 – consideration of strategy. I accept the sum work was justified here but in my judgment no more than 30 minutes can be justified.
Item 9 – consideration of service in Northern Ireland. A total of one hour is excessive and again I would allow 30 minutes.
Item 31 – I am unclear what “finalising all docs ready for issue” really means, where there is a separate charge for preparing the documents and I would disallow this entirely.
Item 45 – I consider 2.36 hours excessive for the costs statement and would allow 2 hours.
Item 47 – I consider 43 hours excessive for instructing counsel to prepare the skeleton argument and considering it once drafted. No skeleton argument was served by the Defendant so apart from time spent anticipating the document, no costs were in fact incurred. I would allow 1.305 hours for this item.
Item 48 – the time of 1.30 hours for considering this judgement and consequent recovery issues to be excessive and would allow 1 hour.
On my calculations, these adjudgments reduce the claim as follows:
Item | Fee earner | Reduction in time | Hourly rate | Reduction in amount |
6 | A | 00:30 | £235 | £117.50 |
9 | D | 00:30 | £148 | £72.00 |
31 | B | 00:30 | £275 | £137.50 |
45 | F | 00:36 | £300 | £180.00 |
47 | B | 01:30 | £275 | £412.50 |
48 | B | 00:30 | £275 | £137.50 |
TOTAL | £1,057.00 |
Accordingly, I reduce the costs claimed by £1,268.40 (£1,057 plus VAT at 20%), making the net sum allowed in the assessment the figure of £24,908.64. In my judgment, that figure is reasonable and proportionate.
TIME FOR PAYMENT
I note that within the Response Pack, the Defendant has included reference to his means. He has not formally requested time for payment nor made any offer. At this stage I do not consider that I have the necessary information to deal with this, not least because his other communication suggest that he may pay the debt by lump sum (having borrowed it from an acquaintance).
Since this is a Circuit Commercial Court case, matters of enforcement are referred to a District Judge at the relevant District Registry (here, Manchester) unless otherwise ordered (see A1.5 of the Circuit Commercial Court Guide). I see no reason to order otherwise here.