Guideline Hourly Rates 2026 UK | How to Challenge Excessive Rates in a Bill of Costs
- Jan 2
- 6 min read
Updated: Mar 27
Last updated: 2 January 2026
Guideline Hourly Rates 2026 UK – SCCO Tables & How to Challenge Rates
If you are assessing a bill of costs, Guideline Hourly Rates are often the first place to start, but they are also one of the most frequently challenged elements of a claim.
Paying parties regularly reduce costs by challenging:
hourly rates above guideline levels
incorrect fee earner grades
excessive senior involvement
poor delegation
Need help challenging hourly rates in a bill? Speak to a costs specialist →
Guideline Hourly Rates 2026 UK (England & Wales)
The current Guideline Hourly Rates 2026 provide the starting point used by the courts when assessing the reasonableness of hourly rates claimed in a bill of costs. The rates are grouped by geographic location and fee earner grade.
Location | Grade A | Grade B | Grade C | Grade D |
London 1 | £566 | £377 | £296 | £191 |
London 2 | £432 | £296 | £226 | £161 |
London 3 | £331 | £244 | £196 | £150 |
National 1 | £321 | £244 | £196 | £150 |
National 2 | £261 | £218 | £178 | £126 |
These figures represent the 2026 inflation-adjusted Guideline Hourly Rates and are commonly used by the courts as a benchmark when assessing hourly rates during detailed assessment proceedings. For comparison with the previous figures see the Guideline Hourly Rates 2025 below.
Challenging Hourly Rates in Practice
Guideline Hourly Rates are a starting point, not an entitlement.
Paying parties frequently achieve reductions where:
rates exceed guideline levels without justification
senior fee earners are used for routine work
work is duplicated or poorly delegated
We act for paying parties in detailed assessment - challenge a Bill of Costs
Fee Earner Grades Used in Guideline Hourly Rates
The Guideline Hourly Rates categorise fee earners into four grades based on experience and role within a firm. These grades are used by courts when assessing the reasonableness of hourly rates claimed in a bill of costs.
Grade A — Solicitors and legal executives with over 8 years’ experience, including partners and senior associates.
Grade B — Solicitors and legal executives with over 4 years’ experience but less than 8 years.
Grade C — Other solicitors and legal executives, typically those with less than 4 years’ experience.
Grade D — Trainees, paralegals and other fee earners, including litigation assistants and support staff.
When assessing costs at detailed assessment, courts consider whether the grade claimed accurately reflects the experience of the fee earner and whether work has been delegated appropriately.
Guideline Hourly Rates (GHR) remain the starting point for assessing the reasonableness of hourly rates in civil litigation in England & Wales. The 2026 Guideline Hourly Rates continue to play a central role in detailed assessment proceedings and in disputes concerning the recoverability of legal costs. For solicitors and insurers acting as paying parties, understanding the current Guideline Hourly Rates 2026 tables is essential when assessing whether the hourly rates claimed in a bill of costs exceed the levels typically allowed by the courts.
Solicitors frequently instruct paying party costs lawyers where hourly rates claimed significantly exceed the Guideline Hourly Rates and a detailed assessment dispute becomes likely. The 2026 Guideline Hourly Rates came into force on 1 January 2026, following an inflationary uplift applied to the 2025 figures. The rate allowed in any particular case will depend on factors such as:
• complexity and specialist features of the work
• value and importance of the dispute
• efficiency and delegation between fee earners
• the work actually undertaken
• proportionality and necessity of the costs claimed.
Because of these factors, disputes concerning Guideline Hourly Rates frequently arise during detailed assessment proceedings.
How Courts Apply Guideline Hourly Rates
The guideline figures are a reference point, not an entitlement. Courts assess hourly rates by considering complexity, the experience of the fee earner, delegation, and proportionality. Even where rates fall within guideline figures, they may be reduced if the work was excessive or carried out at the wrong level.
2026 Guideline Hourly Rates vs 2025 (Comparison Table)
Grade A — Over 8 years’ experience
London 1: £579 (£566)
London 2: £422 (£413)
London 3: £319 (£312)
Grade B — Over 4 years’ experience
London 1: £393 (£385)
London 2: £327 (£319)
London 3: £262 (£256)
Grade C — Other solicitors and equivalent fee earners
London 1: £305 (£299)
London 2: £276 (£269)
London 3: £209 (£204)
Grade D — Trainees, paralegals and other fee earners
London 1: £210 (£205)
London 2: £157 (£153)
London 3: £146 (£143)
National Guideline Hourly Rates: 2025 vs 2026
Grade A — Over 8 years’ experience
National 1: £295 (£289)
National 2: £255 (£249)
Grade B — Over 4 years’ experience
National 1: £230 (£225)
National 2: £218 (£212)
Grade C — Other solicitors and equivalent fee earners
National 1: £177 (£173)
National 2: £178 (£173)
Grade D — Trainees, paralegals and other fee earners
National 1: £126 (£123)
National 2: £126 (£123)
These figures reflect the guideline rates used by courts as a reference point. They may be departed from where justified.
Why Guideline Hourly Rates Become Contested
Hourly rates are one of the biggest drivers of the overall bill. Paying parties often challenge:
rates above guideline figures
the grade claimed
senior time used for routine work
duplication between fee earners
insufficient delegation
GHR disputes usually form part of a broader challenge to reasonableness and proportionality.
Paying parties frequently rely on the guideline figures to challenge excessive rates, incorrect grade allocation, and lack of delegation, particularly in lower value or streamlined claims.
Preparing Points of Dispute or reviewing a bill? Early input on hourly rates can significantly reduce exposure. Speak to a specialist.
When Courts Allow Rates Above GHR
Courts may allow higher rates where justified by evidence, including:
genuine complexity or specialist requirements
urgent or demanding litigation
the nature of the claim requiring sustained senior involvement
What fails is assertion without proof. The court expects evidence that the work and delegation justify the rate at detailed assessment.
How Paying Parties Successfully Challenge Rates
Strong challenges focus on:
whether the case was routine
whether the work matches the grade claimed
unnecessary partner or senior involvement
duplication between fee earners
whether conferences and attendances were necessary
The most effective arguments link hourly rates to proportionality and necessity, which are often central in paying party costs disputes.
Many lower value claims are now subject to the fixed recoverable costs regime rather than guideline hourly rates. For claims allocated to the intermediate track, recoverable costs are determined by the Intermediate Track Costs Tables under CPR 45.50, which set out the fixed costs allowed at each stage of litigation.
The Proportionality Issue
Even rates aligned with GHR can be reduced if total costs are disproportionate to:
the sums in issue
importance of the matter
complexity
conduct and efficiency
Rate disputes therefore form part of a wider recoverability assessment.
Common Mistakes Leading to Reductions
Reductions arise where:
grade is not justified
complexity is asserted but not evidenced
routine tasks are billed at senior rates
delegation is poor
time recording does not support the claim
Why This Matters
Understanding GHR affects:
exposure modelling
negotiation leverage
settlement strategy
how points of dispute are framed
evidence needed at assessment
The most effective challenges focus on proportionality, necessity and conduct, all of which are central to successful paying party costs disputes at detailed assessment.
How Guideline Hourly Rates Are Applied at Detailed Assessment
Guideline Hourly Rates frequently become central issues during detailed assessment of costs. Paying parties often challenge hourly rates where the grade of fee earner, complexity of the litigation, or locality do not justify a departure from the guideline figures. Courts will consider whether the work undertaken justified the level of seniority claimed and whether the overall costs remain proportionate to the dispute.
These issues are commonly raised through carefully drafted Points of Dispute and form a key part of paying party strategy at detailed assessment. A structured challenge to hourly rates, delegation and proportionality can significantly reduce the amount allowed on assessment.
Previous Guideline Hourly Rates
The Guideline Hourly Rates are periodically updated to reflect inflation and developments in litigation costs. Previous versions remain relevant when assessing historic bills of costs or when reviewing litigation conducted under earlier costs frameworks.
Guideline Hourly Rates 2025
The 2026 rates represent an inflationary uplift applied to the 2025 Guideline Hourly Rates. Courts may still encounter bills prepared using the earlier figures where work was undertaken before the 2026 update.
Guideline Hourly Rates 2024
Earlier versions of the Guideline Hourly Rates may also be relevant where historic work is assessed or where courts consider the appropriate benchmark for older litigation.
Key Points
2026 GHR increased across London and National bands
GHR are guidance, not guarantees
Successful challenges are evidence-based
Even guideline-level rates can fall on proportionality
Delegation and justification are critical.
For our full paying party detailed assessment service see:
Challenge Hourly Rates in a Bill of Costs
Disputes over hourly rates are rarely isolated. They form part of a wider challenge to proportionality, delegation and overall recoverability. A structured approach to Guideline Hourly Rates and Points of Dispute can significantly reduce the amount allowed at detailed assessment.
Need help challenging a bill of costs? Contact SPH Costs today
