KB-2023-003483 - [2025] EWHC 1799 (KB)

Mr Callus invited me to summarily assess D3’s costs of the claim on the standard basis, ideally on the papers, on the grounds of expediency and given the Claimants’ conduct of the litigation to date, as described at [45] above.

D3 served the following documents reflecting D3’s total costs of the claim:

D3 conceded that the change of solicitors would have led to some duplication of work, albeit that this was minimised by D3 choosing solicitors and counsel already familiar with this case from having acted for D4. Accordingly, Mr Callus proposed a modest deduction from the total costs incurred, to reflect the first two items on Greenberg Traurig LLP’s schedule where the “handover” work was recorded. On that basis D3 sought an order that the Claimants pay D3’s costs, summarily assessed on the standard basis in the sums of £116,668 (plus £11,302 VAT) and US$21,501.60 within 14 days.

The Claimants opposed the summary assessment of the costs on the grounds of the level of costs claimed, which they contended were exceedingly inflated, unreasonable and disproportionate.

The Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs (2021 Edition) makes clear at paragraph 2 that the court should consider conducting a summary assessment whenever it makes an order for costs which does not provide only for fixed costs. Further, the “general rule” is that the court should carry out a summary assessment of the costs at the conclusion of “any…hearing [other than a trial that has been dealt with on the fast track] which has lasted not more than one day”. In those circumstances the order will deal with the costs of the application or matter to which the hearing related and if the hearing disposes of the claim; and may deal with the costs of the claim.

In my judgment summary assessment of D3’s costs of the claim is not appropriate for the following reasons.

First, the “general rule” referred to at [92] above is not engaged, because the claim against D3 has involved two court hearings: one on 12 December 2024 and one on 12 June 2025. It could be said that the total hearing time across both those hearings was “not more than one day” but that reflects a case management decision made on 12 December 2024, resulting in D3’s counsel leaving the hearing at around 12 pm, against a background of various applications involving D3 being listed for the full day hearing.

Second, assessing D3’s costs of the claim would be far from straightforward. There have been a number of applications made by both parties in the litigation. D3 relies on five costs schedules involving three law firms, two in the UK and one in the US.

The Claimants’ two documents responding to the costs schedules make a large number of points, including the following: work claimed has not in fact been done at all; fee earners have not been properly identified; a Notice of Acting was not properly filed by Greenberg Traurig LLP; the retainer document between D3 and that firm should be disclosed; there was a period of time when Mr Lin had told them he was acting for himself, without a solicitor, which may not have been factored into the costs schedules; insufficient detail has been given in relation to some of the items claimed; many items of work claimed had not been assigned to the appropriate level of fee earner; work done has been duplicative or unreasonable; the hourly rates claimed are too high; the use of two counsel was not justified; the US lawyers referred to were not on the court record; their original invoices should be disclosed; and VAT is not payable on the US lawyers’ fees.

These are all the kind of arguments that would be made during a detailed assessment process. However, the Claimants’ objections are not so specific that they could be treated as equivalent to Points of Dispute that comply with PD 47, paragraph 8.2(b) as considered in Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 178. Although I do not criticise them for it, D3 has not sought to reply to any of the Claimants’ objections.

Accordingly, to assess D3’s costs fairly would inevitably involve directions for the provision of further written documentation from D3 and, in all probability, a further hearing. This renders summary assessment unwieldy, inappropriate and contrary to the overriding objective.