[2025] EWHC 2307 (KB)

Given the agreement of the budget for the Trial Preparation phase, we are not directly concerned with the brief fees of counsel because they have effectively been agreed. However, we are left with the refresher and similar fees which are claimed based on assumptions made in the Trial Preparation phase, in particular the composition of the team of 4 leading counsel, 4 senior juniors and 2 junior junior counsel. We do not consider that we are bound by the effect of the agreed phase, a view expressly set out in the first CMH judgment, given the many novel issues thrown up by these proceedings.

Furthermore, we have noted that the fourth leading counsel, whilst commanding the same brief fee, is not expected to work on the Fridays or weekends, nor between the trial and the consequentials hearing. We are not entirely convinced that this participation ought to lead to refresher fees and nor are we convinced about the need for more than two leading counsel to be leading the team of barristers for the claimants in the Quantum Trial in any event.

We are in no doubt at all that the number of attendees from the solicitors’ firms is not reasonable either, for the reasons discussed earlier. We note that the budgets also make provision for attendances by fee earners from various other firms beside the two leading firms. For the purposes of budgeting we have taken the view that virtually all of the fee earners from the lead firms who are likely to be attending in person should be allowed, but no-one else. This would amount to a team of 4 fee earners from each lead firm. Assuming one fee earner at each of Grades A to D would equate to a combined hourly rate of £3,250.00. If that figure were multiplied by 33 days at 8 hours per day, this would give a figure of £858,000.

There are experts’ attendance fees claimed at just over £0.5m for the trial on the basis that each one would be booked to attend for four weeks. There was some discussion about the reasonableness of that period; and we are very sceptical about it (inter alia based on experience of other litigation and the issues as to timetabling for the attendance of experts at Tranche 2). In our view there also ought to have been some concern at the rates sought for their attendance by the experts. One way or another we think that a figure of half the sum currently claimed might be reasonable.

Adding the figures discussed for counsel, solicitors and experts and adding the sizeable sum payable for the transcription services, we would reach a sum that is less than the amount offered by the defendants for this phase of £3.7m. Given the relative proximity of that figure to the offered sum and the uncertainties of the parameters of the trial viewed from so far ahead, we have decided simply to allow the sum offered by the defendants.