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

In relation to the Hearing Below Costs, the Appellant relies upon a statement of costs dated 17 July 2025, claiming a total of £9,598.32 (the “Third Statement of Costs”) covering the period 6 September 2023 to 7 November 2023. The hearing before Costs Judge Rowley was on 14 September 2023, with the decision delivered on 31 October 2023 and, in relation to consequential matters, on 15 November 2023. It is contended that most of the work was done on documents, predominantly by a Grade B fee earner, Mr Mark Carlisle, with Grade A input, and that the work was appropriately divided. It is also asserted that the Grade A and Grade D hourly rates were equivalent to guideline rates for National Band 2 in 2013.

In relation to the Appeal Costs, the Appellant refers to a statement of costs dated 22 October 2024 (the “First Statement of Costs”), claiming a total of £16,915.36. The Appellant argues that the work done on documents was substantial involving the drafting of the Appellant’s Notice, Grounds of Appeal, and preparation of the appeal bundle. This work was divided between Grade A and Grade D fee earners, mostly within guideline hourly rates. Counsel’s fee of £7,000 is noted to be the same as that of the Respondent’s counsel. The Appellant further requests an adjustment in relation to attendance at the appeal hearing, noting that a Grade B fee earner (Mr Carlisle) was identified in the schedule, but a Grade D fee earner actually attended. The global sum claimed is put forward as both reasonable and proportionate for a one-day High Court appeal.

For Post-Judgment Costs, the Appellant relies on a statement of costs dated 14 July 2025 (the “Second Statement of Costs”), claiming a total of £4,298.76. It is submitted that this work was done after the appeal hearing, that the work on documents was modest and restricted to the bare minimum required after the appeal hearing and handing down of judgment.

I have considered and rejected the Respondent’s submission as to the appropriate order in so far as it is based on conduct alone, earlier in this Judgment. However, in relation to the hearing below, the Respondent contends that it dealt with both disclosure and Part 18 Requests, and the Appellant only succeeded on the latter on appeal (a “win-loss” outcome as the Respondent described it). Furthermore, the Third Statement of Costs was not served prior to the hearing below, in contravention of CPR 44 PD.9.5(4). If a costs order is appropriate at all for the Hearing Below Costs, the Respondent argues that the schedule is not apportioned to reflect the lack of success on the disclosure application and includes costs relating to wider matters. It is said that counsel was not instructed for the application, making conference charges questionable. Further, it is suggested that two fee earners were not reasonably required for that hearing, and Mr Carlisle’s time on the application is high. The Respondent proposes significant reductions, suggesting a total of £3,000 plus VAT as reasonable and proportionate for the hearing below.

More generally, the Respondent challenges the hourly rate for Mr Carlisle, an unqualified fee earner (a costs draftsman) listed as Grade B. The Respondent argues that Mr Carlisle cannot justify a Grade B rate and should be limited to no more than a Grade C rate, specifically £190 for Leeds (National Band 2), given his location and the lack of qualifications. Various items across the schedules are challenged as being high, inexplicable, duplicative, administrative, or irrelevant to the issues. Specifically, “attendances on others” are deemed high given counsel’s limited involvement. Counsel’s fee for the appeal it is suggested should be £5,000 plus VAT, lower than claimed. Work on documents is described as “extraordinary” with specific items challenged for duplication or lack of relevance, such as reviewing Mr Chapman’s witness statement or preparing for a hearing Mr Carlisle did not attend.

For Post-Judgment Costs, the Respondent again cites the high nature of costs, Mr Carlisle’s rate, and the inclusion of non-recoverable work such as reviewing attendance notes of the hearing. The Respondent suggests a sum of £500 plus VAT.