top of page

Paying Party Costs Case Study: £30,000 Saving Without Detailed Assessment

Robust negotiation and technical costs knowledge can achieve substantial savings for paying parties without the time and expense of detailed assessment proceedings. This case study demonstrates how early strategic advice, proportionality arguments and procedural leverage reduced a £70,000 claim to an agreed figure more than 40% lower.

Background

We were instructed by a Defendant in a public liability personal injury claim valued up to £80,000. A costs budget had been prepared but the matter settled prior to the CCMC for damages just under £50,000.  The Claimant served a Schedule of Costs seeking just under £70,000.

Key Issues Identified

Our review identified several significant concerns:

  • Over 80 hours claimed for “Documents” with no breakdown

  • All profit costs claimed at Grade A rates up to £290 per hour

  • Extensive duplication where Counsel had undertaken core work including:

    • liability advice

    • medical evidence

    • Defence

    • Directions and allocation

    • settlement advice

    • drafting the Particulars of Claim and Part 18 request 

This created a strong proportionality and duplication argument.

Strategic Advice

We advised that:​

  • The level of Grade A time was unlikely to be allowed on assessment

  • The lack of breakdown for Documents time created vulnerability

  • The overall costs were disproportionate to the damages recovered

 
Using experience and likely assessment outcomes, we recommended a settlement range up to £40,000 to provide protection against assessment risk.  Instructions were received to adopt this approach.

Procedural Leverage

When negotiations stalled, we required the Claimant to serve a formal Bill and:

  • Identified that time for commencing detailed assessment under CPR 47.7 had expired

  • Indicated an Unless Order application would be made

  • Noted the Bill was incorrectly drafted in traditional format instead of Precedent S for a multi-track matter

 
These technical points placed the Claimant under significant pressure.​
Faced with:

  • proportionality challenges​

  • duplication arguments

  • technical defects in the Bill

  • the risk of an Unless Order

 
the Claimant sought to accept the Defendant’s earlier offer.  That request was resisted due to late acceptance, but a compromise was reached that:
​

  • Reduced the costs from £70,000 to approximately £40,000

  • Achieved a saving of around £30,000 (43%)

  • Secured a contribution towards the Defendant’s own costs

Key Takeaways for Paying Parties

When negotiations stalled, we required the Claimant to serve a formal Bill and:

  • Identified that time for commencing detailed assessment under CPR 47.7 had expired

  • Indicated an Unless Order application would be made

  • Noted the Bill was incorrectly drafted in traditional format instead of Precedent S for a multi-track matter

 
These technical points placed the Claimant under significant pressure.​
Faced with:

  • proportionality challenges​

  • duplication arguments

  • technical defects in the Bill

  • the risk of an Unless Order

 
the Claimant sought to accept the Defendant’s earlier offer.  That request was resisted due to late acceptance, but a compromise was reached that:
​

  • Reduced the costs from £70,000 to approximately £40,000

  • Achieved a saving of around £30,000 (43%)

  • Secured a contribution towards the Defendant’s own costs


This matter demonstrates:​

  • Early technical review of a Schedule of Costs can avoid detailed assessment

  • Grade A over-claim and Counsel duplication remain powerful arguments

  • Procedural knowledge (CPR 47.7 and Precedent S) creates negotiation leverage

  • Robust strategy can produce significant net savings

​
SPH Costs acts for Defendants, insurers and local authorities in challenging disproportionate costs and negotiating substantial reductions without the need for formal assessment proceedings.
​

bottom of page