KA-2024-000232 - [2025] EWHC 1681 (KB)

The claim arises from a road traffic accident involving the parties on 18 September 2019. The Respondent admitted liability for the accident. Causation and quantum remained in dispute. The Appellant issued the claim. It was duly settled on 11 January 2023 by way of a Part 36 offer for the sum of £546,984.

On 3 August 2023 the Appellant commenced detailed assessment proceedings.

Item 39 of the Appellant’s Bill of Costs claimed 134.1 hours for work done on documents. This work was itemised in Schedule 2 to the Bill, which was 24 pages long. It comprised 418 individual entries describing the date of the work, the nature of the work, the person who had carried out the work and the time spent on it.

On 30 August 2023, the Respondent served Points of Dispute. These advanced 25 points. At Point 23, the Respondent took issue with Item 39 in the Appellant’s Bill in the following terms:

“134.1

hours of document time is claimed spanning 24 pages. D refers to criticisms made at Point 1-3 as to the approach taken in costs proceedings and the aggressive nature of time recording throughout the proceedings. D will rely on an annotated documents schedule of objections in support of [sic] however the following general points are made:

- Extensive, unnecessary time is claimed by the Grade A fee earner considering medical records even before expert evidence had been obtained

- Time is claimed throughout for consideration of incoming correspondence which is not recoverable generally and forms part of the time take to action or respond

- In addition to the above time is claimed ‘noting receipt’ of various documents which again is not properly progressive or recoverable

- Multiple administrative entries are included, e.g. ‘dealing with interim payment’ and/or making payments, considering fees etc

- Numerous extensive, excessive and unnecessary entries deal with consideration of the ‘loan agreement’ the claimant alleged but remained unevidenced and unsubstantiated throughout

- Extensive time is claimed ‘collating’ various documents, including multiple excessive and duplicative entries ‘checking’ and ‘collating’ radiology records (by both Grade A and D fee earners)

- There are multiple entries of varying lengths preparing non-routine file notes.

- various entries are plainly duplicated with reviews of the same documents throughout.

In D’s submission, documents / preparation time should be limited to 68 hours 12 minutes.”

On 4 January 2024, the Appellant served Replies to the Points of Dispute. The Appellant requested that the Respondent’s Point of Dispute in relation to Item 39 be dismissed, in the following terms:

“The Claimant does not accept reductions made by the Defendant and would again refer to their arbitrary approach. There are no specific challenges, no bill entries are identified, and neither the nature nor grounds of the dispute are present. A declaration that something is excessive does not make it so. If “excessive” is the “nature” of the dispute as required by PD47 8.2(b), the mandatory grounds of dispute are entirely absent.

While the Claimant appreciates the Defendant’s broad brush approach is for the sake of expedition, the Claimant considers that in the absence of any specific areas of reductions identified at this juncture, the Claimant is unable to provide a meaningful response. The Claimant refers to the decision in Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 178…”.

The Appellant responded to the general points made by the Respondent at Point 23 of the Points of Dispute. The Appellant offered 130 hours for Item 39, comprising 118 hours of work by a Grade A fee earner and 12 hours by a Grade D fee earner.

On 26 March 2024 the Appellant filed a request for a 2 day detailed assessment hearing.

On 28 May 2024 a notice of hearing was sent to the parties, listing the detailed assessment for 5-6 August 2024.

At around 4.15 pm on Wednesday 31 July 2024, and so technically on the morning of Thursday 1 August 2024, the Respondent filed and served the annotated document schedule referred to in Point 23 of the Points of Dispute. For the first time this identified which individual items in Item 39 were in dispute. The Respondent’s objections to individual items were placed into one of the following eight categories: “Duplication; Supervision; Non-progressive; Excessive time claimed; Non-contemporaneous file notes; Case management discussion; Incoming correspondence and routine response out; Lower grade offered, not grade A work”. The annotated document schedule offered a primary case of 58.5 hours and an alternative case of 58.8 hours.