KA-2023-000225 - [2025] EWHC 2112 (KB)

The Appellant claimed a total of £16,915.36.

The Appellant claimed £447.30 for letters/emails and £140.60 for telephone attendances. The Respondent argued that these were high. I allow 1.5 hours at Mr Green's Grade A rate (£272) and 1 hour at the Legal Assistant's Grade D rate (£126) for all attendances on others, totalling (£272 x 1.5) + (£126 x 1) = £408 + £126 = £534. This represents a modest but appropriate reduction.

The Appellant claimed £7,000 for Ms Gopal's hearing fee. The Respondent suggested £5,000. Given that this was a High Court appeal, and that the Respondent's own counsel’s fee was the same, I conclude that the fee of £7,000 was reasonable and proportionate for the hearing itself.

The overall claim for work done on documents was £4,699.70.

Items 4, 5, 8, 16: The Respondent argued that these items involved duplication or were administrative. While some tasks may have had administrative components, I do not find them wholly duplicative or unreasonable given the work required in preparing an appeal.

Item 6(Drafting Appellant's Notice): The Appellant claimed 1.2 hours by Grade B and 3.5 hours by Grade D, totalling £1,268.50. This is, in my view, a high charge for the single document which was before me. I reduce this to 3.0 hours at Grade A rate for Mr Green (£816.00).

Item 14 (Reviewing the Witness statement of Carl Chapman): This was claimed at 0.7 hours by Grade A for £190.40. As the Respondent observed this was not directly relevant to the appeal issues. I therefore disallow this item.

Item 17 (Drafting instructions to counsel): This was claimed at 2.4 hours by a Grade A fee earner at a total of £652.80. This is a significant amount of time for drafting instructions. I reduce this to 1.5 hours at Grade A (£408.00).

Item 18 (Collating enclosures for instructions to counsel): This was claimed at 1.4 hours by Grade C giving £176.40. The Respondent argues that this is an administrative task. I allow 0.5 hours for this item (£63.00).

Items 20 and 21 (Drafting supplementary bundle index and collating documents): The total claimed was £75.60. The Respondent argued that these should be disallowed due to the conduct argument in relation to the Part 18 request. As I have dismissed the conduct argument as a basis for departing from the costs principle, I will not disallow them entirely. However, given that these documents should have been available earlier, I allow 50% of these items, totalling £37.80.

Item 24 (Mr Carlisle’s preparation for hearing): This was claimed at 1.0 hour at a rate of £275.00 (only Mr Carlisle is claimed at this rate). The Appellant conceded that Mr Carlisle did not attend the appeal hearing and as the Respondent pointed out he was not managing the file. I disallow this item.

Overall Adjustment to Work on Documents: The original claim was £4,699.70. The reductions and adjustments are to the following items:

The total reductions are: £452.50 + £190.40 + £244.80 + £113.40 + £37.80 + £275.00 = £1,313.90. The adjusted Work on Documents is: £4,699.70 - £1,313.90 = £3,385.80.

Attendance at hearing: The Appellant claimed 3.0 hours at Mr Carlisle’s rate of £275, totalling £825.00. The Appellant conceded that a Grade D fee earner attended at £134. I allow 3.0 hours at the Grade D rate of £134 = £402.00.

Travel and Waiting: The Appellant claimed 1.0 hour at Mr Carlisle’s rate of £275, totalling £275.00. Again, this should be at the Grade D rate. I allow 1.0 hour at the Grade D rate of £134 = £134.00.

Court fees: £259.00. I allow this as claimed.

The subtotal (before VAT) is therefore: £534.00 (Attendances on others) + £7,000.00 (Counsel's fee) + £3,385.80 (Work on documents) + £402.00 (Attendance at hearing) + £134.00 (Travel/Waiting) + £259.00 (Court fees) = £11,714.80.

The addition of VAT is: £11,714.80 x 0.20 = £2,342.96. The Total assessed on the First Statement is therefore: £14,057.76. I do not consider that any further adjustment for conduct is required beyond the reductions made to individual items above.