Case No. UKUT-0269-(LC)

65. As most the costs could not be readily ascribed or attributed to a particular claimant, it was suggested that the burden of costs (except the £686.25 expert’s costs specifically relating to the second claimant that should be wholly charged to Mermer Ltd) should in fairness be apportioned between them in proportion to the amount of compensation awarded. I accept in principle that the division suggested is a sensible and proportionate resolution to the question of liability for costs. A further schedule was produced showing the intended distribution, but again that failed to attribute the specific expert’s costs to the second claimant referred to above, and the calculations which were, of course, based upon the incorrect totals under each head did not in any event add up to the total of the individual figures sought. 66. Of much greater concern to me was the amounts claimed which in my view are overstated to a considerable degree and wholly out of proportion to the matters in hand. For instance, DWF has claimed hourly rates for work carried out by Grade A, Grade B, Grade C and Trainee Solicitors all in the same amount (£115 per hour) and as I have said none of the figures tally up. As to disbursements, I find counsel’s fees of £5,000 for attendance at the hearing which, due to the claimants’ failure to turn up, lasted no more than 40 minutes, to be excessive in the extreme. As to the claim of £7,505 relating to costs allegedly incurred by the valuation expert since 21 March, the schedule provided includes almost £5,000 under the headings of “preparation for hearing” and a further £607.50 for “review [of] RICS Practice Statement: Surveyors Acting as Expert Witnesses”. This last item I find to be totally incredible. It is up to the expert to keep up to date and accord with the RICS requirements, and it is not a cost which can be recouped from the claimants. The additional preparation costs are in my judgment again excessive and unjustified. The expert’s attendance costs at the hearing were not unreasonable in the amount claimed. 67. In the light of these comments, I determine that the costs to be awarded against the claimants shall be in the sum of £15,838.35 made up as to DWF attendance costs £2,000.00, DWF’s other expenses (including the hearing fee) £4,740.50, counsel’s fees £4,000.00, valuation expert’s fees £3,686.25 (with the £686.25 being the extra costs applying only to the second claimant) and the acquiring authority’s in-house legal costs at £1,411.60. The apportionment I calculate as follows: Claimant 1: £15,152.10 x 81.18% =