Relief from Sanction Denied for Costs Budget 1 day out of time – Lakhani & Another v Mahmud & Others [2017] EWHC 1713 (Ch). Ever since the introduction of costs budgeting, there has been a wealth of case law developed surrounding the same, and no more so than where a party has been in default of the rules. The provisions of CPR 3.14provide that a party failing to file a budget in accordance with the rules “…will be treated as having filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees.” and thus in such circumstances there is an automatic sanction restricting that party’s costs to court fees only, unless a successful Application for Relief from Sanction can be pursued. The first matter to really address such default was the matter of Henry, decided even before the reforms brought in on 1 April 2013, and was followed by the matter of Mitchell in which relief was not granted and thus the claimant was restricted to the recovery of court fees only, notwithstanding the very substantial nature of the litigation, after which it was clear that the Court of Appeal required to provide guidance as to the appropriate test to be applied if, what at that time was seen to be, overly draconian sanctions for minor defaults in timescales were to be avoided. Further guidance, and perhaps most importantly a test to be applied, was provided in the matter of Dentonwhich developed a 3 stage test, obliging the court upon any such Application for Relief to identify and assess the seriousness or significance of any failure to comply with any rule, practice direction or court order; consider why any failure or default occurred; and if it is found that any such failure was either serious or significant, deny any relief from sanction unless there is a good reason for that failure or default. Since the advent of Denton, matters had been largely quiet in terms of published decisions on such applications, however more recently the issue has come to the fore once more in the matter of Lakhani & Another v Mahmud & Others [2017] EWHC 1713 (Ch). In this matter, an order had been made on 18 November 2016, providing for the parties to file and serve updated cost budgets 21 days before the CCMC, which had been scheduled to take place on 10 January 2017. The Claimant served their costs budget on 19 December 2016 which was the correct day, however this prompted the Defendant’s solicitor to prepare their cost budget, which was served the following day, 20 December 2016. The Claimant’s costs budget was over £100,000, with the Defendant’s being approximately half that amount however the Claimant contended that as service of the Defendant’s budget had been late, the automatic sanctions imposed by CPR 3.14 applied and thus, unless relief from sanction was granted, nothing more than court fees would be recoverable in the event that the Defendants were successful in obtaining a costs order. It is significant in the consideration of this matter to note that no application for relief was made until the matter came before the court upon the CCMC, whereupon a hearing which had originally been listed for 45 minutes to determine simple costs budgets turned into a half day hearing which was entirely dominated by the application, and resulted in such relief being refused. The matter came on appeal, from HHJ Lochrane in the County Court at Central London, before Mr Daniel Alexander QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division, whereupon the judge had regard to the comments of HHJ Lochrane that “…in certain circumstances being one day late with the costs budget “might not be regarded as terribly serious“.” and noted the judge’s overall conclusion that the breach was “…not a trivial breach. It is a serious breach. It is a breach which has imperilled the proper conduct of this litigation. It has reduced the time available for these parties to conduct themselves in the way that is expected by the Rules to narrow the issues on the costs budget. It has further created an environment in which the attention of both parties, by the default of the defendants, has been distracted onto a matter which is relevant to those costs budgeting issues.” In considering the Defendant’s appeal against HHJ Lochrane’s refusal of relief, the Deputy Judge had regard both to the provisions of CPR 3.9 and the matters of Denton and Clearway, clearly approaching the appeal as a review and not a rehearing and addressing the grounds of appeal, which contended that HHJ Lochrane had (i) erred in his approach by failing to take into account key matters in assessing the seriousness of the breach and (ii) had given too little weight to the fact that there were innocent reasons for the breach. In this regard, the Deputy Judge approached the review to consider firstly the seriousness of the breach and, thereafter, whether there was any reasonable excuse. In respect of the former of these, the Deputy Judge having weighed up the issues extensively within his judgement, concluded that “…HH Judge Lochrane was entitled to take the factors into account that he considered particularly relevant in this case in determining whether the breach was serious or significant and was not obliged to treat the fact that costs budgeting could be done as the overriding one. Other judges may have approached the matter somewhat differently, giving factors more or less weight and reached a different conclusion. This seems to me a case on the borderline of sufficient seriousness to warrant refusal of relief from sanctions. However, I do not consider that this court can properly interfere on that basis, having regard to the approach required on an appeal of this nature. “…there is a risk in these cases in attempting a purist compartmentalisation of factors into the respective stages of Denton and criticising judges if that is imperfectly done in ex tempore judgements. Some factors may be considered at more than one stage. In this case, even had HH Judge Lochrane concluded that the breach was not serious, he would have been entitled to conclude at the 3rd stage that the manner in which it was sought to be remedied, including the dispute over whether there was a breach in the lateness of the application, meant that relief from sanctions should not be ordered. That being so, it is somewhat artificial to criticise his judgment on the footing that factors which were legitimately considered at the first stage but which might better have been considered at the third stage also came in at the first.” Considering whether there was any reasonable excuse, the Deputy Judge concluded, in his view, that there was not, considering that there had been no reasonable misunderstanding of the rules as to the due date of the costs budget as, firstly, the defendant solicitor had only started to prepare the cost budget after receiving the claimant’s costs budget and thus, on any interpretation, the work was undertaken at the last minute; secondly the position in this matter was similar to one in which a solicitor excuses not serving a cost budget until the last minute, having “…taken the incorrect and “rather arrogant” decision that none was required because of his reading of the rules…“; and thirdly, notwithstanding that the mistake was explicable, he was not satisfied that it was properly described as an “understandable mistake”. Concluding the matter overall, the Deputy Judge was not critical of the approach taken by HHJ Lochrane, considering the same to have been proper both in principle and on the facts, and further finding that the “…conclusion was open to him in the exercise of his discretion and is of a kind which the Court of Appeal has recommended should normally be upheld. “The decision was, perhaps, on the tougher end of the spectrum as to substance and on the leaner end of the spectrum as to analysis. But the defendants have not been deprived of a trial altogether. Had that been the consequence, the situation would have merited more detailed scrutiny than the judge gave it. HH Judge Lochrane’s decision operates to deprive the defendants of their budgeted costs in the event that they succeed at trial. If the claimant succeeded at trial, the decision will have had a limited adverse impact on the defendants other than enabling the claimants to litigate without significant risk of having to pay the defendants’ costs. In those circumstances it is hard to criticise it as disproportionate. “Nor is this a case in which the claimants were using the rules of the tripwire. The claimants’ solicitors pointed out correctly and promptly following late service of the defendants’ costs schedule that without an application for relief from sanctions the consequences of CPR 3.14 would follow. They were not obliged to consent in advance to an application for relief from sanctions which had not been made and which was not provided to them until the day of the hearing, giving them almost no opportunity to address it fully.” This matter once again demonstrates the very broad discretion which can be applied in applications for relief from sanctions and, perhaps more importantly, the necessity to ensure that, where at all possible, all rules, practice directions and court orders are fully complied with, especially with regard to the costs budgeting regime. Failing compliance any application for relief must be made swiftly. We operate a highly efficient and cost-effective costs budgeting department, which can assist you in all aspects of costs budgeting from the preparation of budgets up to and including attendance upon CCMC’s and, where necessary, a priority service. To find out how we can assist, please contact us either by telephone on 01772 435550 or 01604) 604035 or email costs@sphcostingservices.com

This guide explains how Points of Dispute work in detailed assessment. If you require professional drafting, see: Draft Points of Dispute – Costs Draftsman Services - https://www.sphcosts.com/draft-points-of-dispute Points of Dispute are the most important document in detailed assessment proceedings. They are where paying parties either reduce a bill of costs, or allow it to stand. In practice, the outcome of detailed assessment is rarely determined at the hearing. It is driven by: how Points of Dispute are structured whether proportionality is properly advanced whether the key weaknesses in the bill are identified early Weak or generic Points of Dispute frequently result in avoidable costs being allowed. For a structured approach to reducing exposure, see: https://www.sphcosts.com/detailed-assessment-costs-disputes What Are Points of Dispute? Points of Dispute are the paying party’s formal response to a bill of costs served by the receiving party under CPR Part 47. They identify: the items challenged within the bill the reductions sought the basis of each objection In practice, they define the scope of the dispute and form the foundation of both negotiation and assessment. Well-structured Points of Dispute focus on the issues most likely to influence the court rather than challenging every entry indiscriminately. The Role of Points of Dispute in Detailed Assessment Points of Dispute do more than respond to a bill, they shape the outcome of the entire process. They determine: whether the matter settles before assessment which issues the court focuses on how the bill is evaluated as a whole Detailed assessment is not simply a line-by-line exercise. The court considers the bill against CPR principles of reasonableness and proportionality. For a wider overview of how detailed assessment works, see: https://www.sphcosts.com/post/detailed-assessment-of-costs-guide Precedent G – Points of Dispute Format Points of Dispute are typically drafted using the Precedent G format contained in the Costs Practice Direction. This structure allows: each item in the bill to be addressed the objection to be clearly stated the dispute to be understood efficiently by the court The format usually includes: item reference the paying party’s objection any reply from the receiving party the court’s determination Courts expect Points of Dispute to follow this structured approach so that issues can be identified quickly during assessment. When Must Points of Dispute Be Served? Under CPR Part 47, the paying party normally has 21 days from service of: the Notice of Commencement the Bill of Costs to serve Points of Dispute. Failure to do so may result in a Default Costs Certificate, allowing the receiving party to recover the full amount claimed without assessment. For professional drafting support, see: Draft Points of Dispute – Costs Draftsman Services - https://www.sphcosts.com/draft-points-of-dispute Common Grounds of Challenge Points of Dispute typically focus on a number of recurring issues: Hourly Rates rates exceeding guideline levels lack of justification for enhancement incorrect fee earner grading For current guidance, see:https://www.sphcosts.com/post/guideline-hourly-rates-2026 Delegation and Fee Earner Grade routine work undertaken by senior fee earners lack of supervision evidence inefficient use of resources Duplication of Work multiple fee earners attending the same task repeated internal communications unnecessary review Proportionality Even where individual items are reasonable, the overall bill may still be disproportionate. Courts consider: value of the claim complexity importance of the litigation conduct Further guidance:https://www.sphcosts.com/post/proportionality-challenges-at-detailed-assessment Work Outside Scope unnecessary or irrelevant work issues arising from procedural errors work not reasonably required for the claim Points of Dispute and Provisional Assessment Many bills are determined through provisional assessment, a paper-based process. Your written case is the case. The judge’s decision will reflect: the Points of Dispute the Replies the structure and clarity of arguments Poorly drafted Points of Dispute are difficult to recover later. For more on this stage:https://www.sphcosts.com/post/oral-hearings-following-provisional-assessment How Points of Dispute Influence Negotiation Although Points of Dispute are a procedural requirement, their real value lies in negotiation. Strong Points of Dispute: expose weaknesses in the bill apply pressure on proportionality and rates frequently lead to settlement before assessment Weak or unfocused Points of Dispute rarely achieve meaningful reductions. Points of Dispute as Part of a Wider Strategy Points of Dispute do not operate in isolation. They form part of a wider detailed assessment strategy focused on reducing overall exposure. Effective strategy links: hourly rate challenges delegation arguments proportionality recoverability For a structured approach, see:https://www.sphcosts.com/detailed-assessment-costs-disputes Why Many Points of Dispute Fail In practice, Points of Dispute often fail to achieve meaningful reductions because: challenges are generic rather than targeted proportionality arguments are not properly developed too much focus is placed on individual items key weaknesses in the bill are not identified early The most effective Points of Dispute focus on the issues most likely to influence the outcome. Need to Challenge a Bill of Costs? We act for insurers, local authorities and defendants in: drafting structured Points of Dispute challenging hourly rates and delegation advancing proportionality arguments reducing exposure before detailed assessment Challenge a Bill of Costs - https://www.sphcosts.com/challenge-bill-of-costs Detailed Assessment Strategy - https://www.sphcosts.com/detailed-assessment-costs-disputes Paying Party Detailed Assessment - https://www.sphcosts.com/paying-party-detailed-assessment Related Costs Guides Detailed Assessment of Costs: The Complete Guide -https://www.sphcosts.com/post/detailed-assessment-of-costs-guide How Paying Parties Challenge a Bill of Costs - https://www.sphcosts.com/post/how-paying-parties-challenge-a-bill-of-costs-at-detailed-assessment Intermediate Track Costs Tables - https://www.sphcosts.com/post/intermediate-track-costs-table

Detailed assessment of costs is the court process used to determine which legal costs are recoverable following litigation and in what amount. Where the parties cannot agree the level of costs payable after a costs order, the receiving party may commence detailed assessment proceedings. Detailed assessment is governed primarily by CPR Part 47 and involves the court examining the bill of costs, Points of Dispute, and Replies. The court determines whether the work undertaken was reasonably incurred and whether the total costs claimed are proportionate to the issues in dispute. Understanding how detailed assessment works is essential for both paying and receiving parties when managing litigation exposure and protecting recoverability. Challenging a Bill of Costs? For paying parties responding to a bill, the outcome often depends on how Points of Dispute are drafted. See: Draft Points of Dispute – Costs Draftsman Services https://www.sphcosts.com/draft-points-of-dispute See our detailed assessment strategy for paying parties: https://www.sphcosts.com/paying-party-detailed-assessment Or learn how to challenge a bill of costs in practice: https://www.sphcosts.com/challenge-bill-of-costs What Is a Detailed Assessment of Costs? A detailed assessment occurs where the amount of costs payable has not been agreed following a costs order. The receiving party prepares and serves a bill of costs setting out the work undertaken and the costs claimed. The paying party may then respond with Points of Dispute identifying the reductions sought. The receiving party may serve Replies addressing those challenges. Effective Points of Dispute are central to reducing exposure, see our guide to drafting Points of Dispute: https://www.sphcosts.com/points-of-dispute Where the dispute cannot be resolved through negotiation, the court determines the recoverable costs through provisional assessment or an oral detailed assessment hearing. When Detailed Assessment Proceedings Arise Detailed assessment proceedings commonly arise after: • trial where one party is ordered to pay the other’s costs • settlement of litigation where costs are not agreed • interim costs orders following applications • discontinuance of proceedings Where the parties cannot agree the amount payable, the receiving party may begin detailed assessment proceedings to determine the recoverable costs. The Stages of Detailed Assessment Proceedings Detailed assessment proceedings follow a structured procedural process. The typical stages are: • preparation and service of the bill of costs • service of Points of Dispute by the paying party • service of Replies by the receiving party • negotiation between the parties • provisional assessment or oral detailed assessment hearing Many disputes resolve through negotiation once the issues have been clarified in the Points of Dispute and Replies. For practical guidance see: https://www.sphcosts.com/post/how-paying-parties-challenge-a-bill-of-costs-at-detailed-assessment. The Bill of Costs The bill of costs sets out the work undertaken by the receiving party’s solicitors together with the costs claimed for that work. Bills must comply with the Costs Practice Direction and present the work undertaken in a structured and transparent format so that the court can assess reasonableness and proportionality. A typical bill of costs will include: • profit costs claimed for fee earners • disbursements such as counsel’s fees or expert fees • time spent on each stage of the litigation • VAT where applicable The structure and presentation of the bill frequently influence how disputes develop during detailed assessment. The Form and Content of a Bill of Costs (Practice Direction Requirements) The Costs Practice Direction sets out how bills of costs must be structured for the purposes of detailed assessment. A bill of costs may contain the following sections: • title page • background information • items of costs claimed • summary showing total costs claimed • schedules of time spent on non-routine attendances • the required certificates These requirements ensure that the court can identify the work undertaken and assess the reasonableness of the costs claimed. Title Page Requirements The title page of the bill of costs must set out: • the full title of the proceedings • the name of the party whose bill is being assessed • the document establishing the right to assessment • the VAT number of the legal representative where VAT is claimed • details of any legal aid certificates or funding arrangements This information confirms the legal basis for the claim and allows the court to identify the parties involved. Background Information in the Bill The background section explains the progress of the litigation up to the commencement of detailed assessment proceedings. This section normally includes: • a brief description of the proceedings • the status and grade of fee earners• the hourly rates claimed • any agreement affecting recoverability of costs The background provides the context needed for the court to evaluate the costs claimed. Heads of Costs in the Bill Items in the bill of costs are normally grouped under recognised heads of costs. These reflect the types of work undertaken during the litigation. Common heads include: • attendances at court and upon counsel • communications with the client • communications with witnesses and experts • communications with the court and third parties • work done on documents • settlement negotiations• work undertaken by agents Each item within the bill must be consecutively numbered so that it can be individually assessed. Routine and Non-Routine Communications The Practice Direction distinguishes between routine and non-routine communications. Routine communications typically include brief emails, letters or telephone calls that do not involve substantive legal work. These are normally claimed on a standard unit basis. Non-routine communications involving substantive legal work must be recorded individually and set out in chronological order. Where there are large numbers of communications, the bill may refer to a schedule containing the full record of those items. Division of Bills into Separate Parts In certain circumstances the bill must be divided into separate parts. This may occur where: • different solicitors acted during the proceedings • legal aid applied for part of the case • different paying parties are responsible for costs • different interest periods apply • costs budgets apply Where a costs management order has been made, the bill must also distinguish between incurred costs and estimated costs for each budget phase. Points of Dispute Points of Dispute are the paying party’s primary tool for reducing a bill of costs. Well-structured Points of Dispute frequently determine whether a matter settles or proceeds to detailed assessment. For specialist drafting support, see: Draft Points of Dispute – Costs Draftsman Services - https://www.sphcosts.com/draft-points-of-dispute Points of Dispute are the core document shaping the outcome of detailed assessment. Weak or generic challenges frequently result in unnecessary costs being allowed. For a practical guide to drafting effective Points of dispute: https://www.sphcosts.com/post/how-paying-parties-challenge-a-bill-of-costs-at-detailed-assessment For strategic paying party approach:https://www.sphcosts.com/paying-party-detailed-assessment Points of Dispute are served by the paying party. These identify the specific reductions sought and explain the basis of the challenge. Common grounds include: • hourly rate challenges • duplication of work • lack of delegation • disproportionate time claimed • work outside the scope of the claim Hourly Rates and Guideline Hourly Rates One of the most common areas of dispute at detailed assessment concerns the hourly rates claimed by solicitors. Courts frequently use the Guideline Hourly Rates 2026 as a starting point when assessing whether rates are reasonable. Disputes commonly arise where: • rates exceed guideline levels • the grade of fee earner is challenged • delegation between fee earners is questioned • the complexity of the work is disputed Courts may allow higher rates where the complexity of the litigation justifies them. Proportionality in Detailed Assessment Even where individual items of work are reasonable, the court must consider whether the overall costs claimed are proportionate. The court considers factors including: • the sums in issue • the complexity of the case • the importance of the litigation • the conduct of the parties Proportionality arguments are often the most powerful tool available to paying parties when seeking substantial reductions. See how proportionality challenges are applied in practice:https://www.sphcosts.com/post/proportionality-challenges-at-detailed-assessment Fixed Recoverable Costs and Intermediate Track Disputes Detailed assessment disputes also arise where fixed recoverable costs under CPR Part 45 apply. Issues commonly include: • whether the claim falls within the fixed costs regime • whether work falls outside the permitted stages • whether exceptional circumstances apply Further guidance on the fixed costs regime can be found here: https://www.sphcosts.com/post/intermediate-track-costs-table Provisional Assessment Many detailed assessments are initially determined through provisional assessment. This is a paper-based process in which the court reviews the bill of costs, Points of Dispute and Replies without an oral hearing. The court then issues a written determination indicating the amount allowed. Where either party believes the provisional decision is incorrect, they may request an oral detailed assessment hearing. Further explanation can be found here: https://www.sphcosts.com/post/oral-hearings-following-provisional-assessment Detailed assessment is not simply a procedural process. For paying parties, it is the stage where costs exposure is reduced or allowed. See: Detailed Assessment Costs Disputes https://www.sphcosts.com/detailed-assessment-costs-disputes Oral Detailed Assessment Hearings Where a provisional decision is challenged, or where the dispute is unsuitable for paper determination, the court may conduct an oral detailed assessment hearing. At the hearing the parties present arguments concerning disputed items within the bill. Typical issues include: • hourly rates • proportionality • delegation between fee earners • recoverability of disbursements • procedural compliance The costs judge will determine the final recoverable amount. Why Early Costs Strategy Matters The outcome of detailed assessment is rarely determined solely at the hearing stage. Decisions made during the litigation often influence the arguments that arise later. Early consideration of costs strategy can affect: • how work is recorded in the bill • the framing of Points of Dispute • negotiation strategy • the likelihood of settlement before assessment A structured approach to costs strategy helps reduce exposure and improve recoverability. Summary: Detailed Assessment of Costs Need to Reduce a Bill of Costs? If you are facing a detailed assessment, the strategy adopted at the outset will often determine the outcome. Weak or unfocused challenges frequently result in excessive costs being allowed. Structured, evidence-based Points of Dispute and proportionality arguments can significantly reduce overall exposure. We act for insurers, local authorities and defendants across England & Wales in: drafting Points of Dispute challenging hourly rates and proportionality negotiating reductions prior to assessment preparing for detailed assessment hearings Challenge a Bill of Costs: https://www.sphcosts.com/challenge-bill-of-costs Detailed Assessment Strategy: https://www.sphcosts.com/paying-party-detailed-assessment

Update April 2026. This matter has now been heard by the Court of Appeal - Judgement has been handed down. The appeal in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, listed for hearing on 24 February 2026, is being discussed largely in regulatory and professional terms. What has received far less attention is its potential impact on litigation costs, recoverability, and exposure to challenge, an omission that may prove costly for litigating firms. From a costs perspective, Mazur is not a niche regulatory dispute. It goes directly to the question of who is lawfully conducting litigation, a question that sits uncomfortably close to the foundations of litigation costs recovery in England and Wales. Conduct of Litigation and the Hidden Costs Risk At the heart of Mazur is the boundary between permitted and non-permitted activities under the Legal Services Act 2007. While the appeal itself will be argued before the Court of Appeal, the downstream consequences are likely to be felt most sharply during costs assessment proceedings. If litigation is found to have been conducted, even partially, by individuals without the requisite authorisation, several uncomfortable costs questions arise: Are those costs recoverable at all? Do they fall foul of the indemnity principle? Are paying parties entitled to argue that work was unlawfully undertaken and therefore irrecoverable? Does delegation and supervision preserve recoverability, or merely complicate the position? These issues are not academic. They are precisely the arguments that surface late, during detailed assessment, when positions harden, evidence is dissected, and paying parties look for structural weaknesses rather than marginal reductions. Delegation, Supervision, and Costs Scrutiny One of the most likely consequences of the Mazur appeal, regardless of outcome, is increased scrutiny of fee-earner roles. Paying parties are already more willing to interrogate who did what, at what level, and under whose supervision. That scrutiny is no longer confined to hourly rates. It increasingly extends to whether particular work should have been undertaken at all, and whether it was undertaken by someone lawfully entitled to do so. From a costs drafting and negotiation standpoint, this creates exposure in several familiar areas: Hourly rate justification, particularly for paralegals and legal executives Challenges to time spent on the basis that work was carried out by an inappropriate fee-earner Reduction or disallowance of costs said to arise from improper conduct of litigation This is where many firms expose themselves. Poorly structured narratives, vague supervision descriptions, and generic time entries invite attack. These issues are already well-established in Court of Protection costs disputes, where the Senior Courts Costs Office routinely scrutinises delegation, supervision, and recoverability. Why the Mazur Appeal Should Change How Firms Approach Costs Now Waiting until after February 2026 to react is a mistake. Costs risk is retrospective. Bills already drafted, and work already undertaken, may be judged by principles clarified later, particularly where the conduct of litigation is called into question. Firms that assume the risk only crystallises after judgment misunderstand how costs disputes develop. Prudent firms are already: Reviewing how litigation roles are described in bills of costs Tightening the way supervision is evidenced and explained Stress-testing cases for recoverability risk, not merely quantum Seeking specialist input early, rather than at the point of dispute This is not alarmism; it is realism. The greater the uncertainty at the regulatory level, the more aggressively costs will be challenged. The Strategic Value of Specialist Costs Support Mazur reinforces a truth many firms still resist: costs is not an administrative afterthought. It is a risk discipline. Specialist costs professionals are uniquely placed to identify vulnerabilities that litigators often miss, particularly where recoverability may turn not on the amount claimed, but on how litigation activity is characterised, delegated, and supervised. Getting this wrong does not merely reduce recovery; it can undermine it entirely. As the appeal approaches, firms that treat costs strategically rather than reactively will be better placed to protect recovery, resist challenge, and justify their positions with confidence. Final Thought When the Court of Appeal hands down its decision, much of the profession will focus on regulation and rights of audience. Costs lawyers will be dealing with the fallout. If your files, narratives, and billing structures are not ready for that scrutiny, February 2026 may arrive with greater exposure and reduced recovery than many firms expect. For our full paying party detailed assessment service see: 👉 Detailed Assessment Paying Party Services 👉 Paying Party Costs Lawyers Detailed Assessment Strategy Guides Detailed Assessment of Costs: The Complete Guide Paying Party Detailed Assessment Strategy How Paying Parties Challenge a Bill of Costs Proportionality Challenges at Detailed Assessment Fee Earner Delegation Challenges at Detailed Assessment Guideline Hourly Rates 2026 Intermediate Track Costs Tables

The Legal Aid Agency has today published an updated snapshot of its current civil processing dates, setting out where it is with civil applications, amendments and billing. The update provides an overview of current processing positions across civil applications, amendments and billing. It is particularly relevant for clients as it offers an indication of likely timescales at a point when processing volumes are increasing, following the reinstatement of the online portal last month. As a result, some delay is to be expected while applications and bills submitted during the outage continue to be worked through. Civil Bills – Current Timescales According to the latest guidance, the LAA is currently processing most civil bills, including court assessed, fixed fee and hourly rate claims, within 18 working days. Faster turnaround times apply to certain claim types, such as POA and FAS claims. Once a bill has been processed, payment typically follows within a further 5 to 9 working days, depending on banking clearance times. These published timescales are helpful for understanding the overall billing journey, particularly where firms are planning cashflow and forecasting income. Applications, Amendments and Authorities The update also confirms that the LAA is working through civil applications and amendments submitted in December 2025, with means reassessments now reaching early January 2026. From a costs perspective, this is important because amendments and authorities often determine when work becomes billable. Delays at this stage can have a knock-on effect on when costs can be finalised and submitted, even where substantive work on a matter has progressed. High-Cost Family Work For high-cost family matters, the guidance indicates that case plans are currently taking between 35 and 37 working days to process, depending on complexity. Correspondence relating to these cases is being dealt with more quickly. These timelines are a useful reference point for firms managing higher-value matters, where costs exposure and approval stages need to be carefully aligned. What SPH Costs Is Doing In response to the updated processing position, SPH Costs continues to take a proactive and structured approach to managing expectations and progression. Our team is: Closely monitoring LAA processing updates and published timescales Submitting applications, amendments and bills promptly and in line with current guidance Ensuring files are billing-ready as soon as authority is in place Tracking progress so matters can move forward as soon as they become eligible for assessment or payment Where wider system delays affect turnaround times, we keep clients informed and factor this into costs forecasting. Our aim is to provide clarity around likely timelines and reduce uncertainty, particularly during periods of increased volume following system changes. In Summary The LAA’s latest update provides a helpful snapshot of current processing positions across civil legal aid work. While some delays are expected as the system stabilises following the recent portal reinstatement, understanding these timescales allows firms and costs teams to plan accordingly. SPH Costs will continue to monitor developments closely and work with clients to ensure costs are progressed efficiently, transparently and in line with current guidance. Legal Aid costs claims frequently involve technical issues around billing, assessment, and compliance with Legal Aid Agency requirements. Specialist Legal Aid costs drafting support is often required to ensure claims are prepared and progressed correctly within the applicable framework. Our Legal Aid costs drafting services are explained in more detail on our Legal Aid Costs Drafting. Why Processing Delays Often Turn Into Costs Assessment Issues Delays in Legal Aid processing are not simply administrative frustrations. Where claims are queried, reduced, or subject to extended review, issues often arise concerning narrative clarity, evidence of work undertaken, and compliance with the Legal Aid Agency’s expectations under the CCMS framework. Costs claims that do not clearly link work done to procedural stages or funding authority frequently attract challenge, delay, or reduction, particularly where specialist Legal Aid costs drafting has not been applied at an early stage. Specialist Costs Lawyers and Law Costs Draftsmen involved in Legal Aid work focus not only on recording time but on structuring claims so that the work undertaken is transparent, proportionate, and aligned with the LAA’s assessment approach. Early attention to how the file is presented can materially reduce the risk of queries, payment delays, and post-assessment disputes. Need Support with Legal Aid Billing? If your firm requires support with CCMS claims, High Cost Case Plans or Legal Aid costs drafting, SPH Costs provides specialist assistance tailored to publicly funded work: Legal Aid Costs Drafting Services High Cost Case Plans (HCCP)

The introduction of the CCMS Secure Browser changes how firms access and submit Legal Aid claims. While designed to improve security, it also creates operational risks that can delay submissions, increase administrative time, and affect cashflow. For firms managing high volumes of Legal Aid billing, structured processes are now essential to protect recovery. For our Legal Aid costs services click here. Why the Secure Browser Matters for Costs Recovery CCMS is the gateway for submitting claims, amendments, and supporting evidence. The Secure Browser requires repeated authentication, does not store login data, and times out after periods of inactivity. In practice, this increases the risk of lost work, interrupted uploads, and delayed submissions, all of which affect the timing of payment and overall recovery. Common Technical Issues That Affect Billing Firms are encountering recurring issues that directly impact costs workflows, including: login loops and incorrect user roles restricted access where permissions are not properly configured upload failures caused by file naming conventions Excel documents being rejected due to embedded macros These problems frequently result in rejected claims, duplicated work, and missed submission windows. Cashflow and Recoverability Risk Administrative time spent resolving technical issues is not recoverable. Delays in submitting claims can also delay payment and create avoidable cashflow pressure. Where work must be repeated due to upload failures or session timeouts, firms bear the cost without any increase in recoverable fees. The principles of recoverability mean that only properly evidenced and compliant claims will be allowed, making accurate and timely CCMS submission critical. Best Practice for Firms To minimise disruption, firms should: save work frequently to avoid session timeouts standardise file naming conventions before upload ensure correct user roles and permissions are assigned maintain more than one trained CCMS user validate Excel files to remove macros prior to submission These steps reduce rejection rates and support smoother processing of Legal Aid claims. How Costs Specialists Reduce CCMS Risk Specialist costs support helps ensure that claims are compliant on first submission, reducing the risk of rejection and delay. This includes: preparing fully evidenced CCMS claims structuring supporting documentation managing amendments and escape fee calculations responding to LAA queries and reductions Early involvement improves both efficiency and recovery. For structured Legal Aid billing support click here Key Takeaways The Secure Browser increases authentication and session management requirements Upload failures and permission errors can delay claims Administrative time spent resolving technical issues is not recoverable Structured workflows protect cashflow and maximise recovery Specialist costs input reduces rejection and resubmission risk Need Support with Legal Aid Billing? If your firm requires support with CCMS claims, High Cost Case Plans or Legal Aid costs drafting, SPH Costs provides specialist assistance tailored to publicly funded work: Legal Aid Costs Drafting Services High Cost Case Plans (HCCP)

Recent updates from the Legal Aid Agency introduce important changes affecting how firms handle billing, contingency work and disbursement claims. In particular, the restoration of CCMS processes and updated guidance on travel and subsistence claims have practical implications for solicitors managing Legal Aid files. These developments are not simply administrative. They directly affect how work is recorded, submitted and ultimately recovered. Firms that fail to adapt their approach risk delays, rejected claims or reduced recovery. In practice, many firms seek support with Legal Aid costs drafting and CCMS billing support when dealing with complex submissions or post-update compliance requirements. CCMS Restoration and Contingency Work During the recent system disruption, providers were required to submit work outside of standard CCMS processes. The latest guidance confirms that normal processes have now resumed, and firms must return to submitting claims through CCMS or Civil Apply. The key issue is how contingency work is now treated. Work completed and submitted during the outage must be reconciled against the restored system. Where claims were submitted via alternative routes, firms must ensure that: submissions are correctly recorded on CCMS duplicate claims are avoided all work is properly linked to the relevant matter supporting documentation is retained and accessible This creates a transitional risk period. Files handled during the outage may now contain inconsistencies between recorded work and submitted claims. Where this is not addressed carefully, issues may arise at assessment or audit stage. This is particularly important in complex matters or High Cost Case Plans, where billing structures are already detailed and technical. Travel and Subsistence Guidance Updates The updated guidance on travel and subsistence reflects a continued focus by the Legal Aid Agency on claim scrutiny and cost control. Although not a structural change to the billing system, the update reinforces that: claims must be properly evidenced time and travel must be reasonable and proportionate excessive or poorly explained claims are likely to be reduced or rejected For firms, this means that routine disbursement claims may attract closer scrutiny, particularly where travel appears disproportionate to the value or complexity of the case. This aligns with the broader trend of tighter compliance expectations across Legal Aid billing. Practical Risks for Solicitors Taken together, these updates highlight several recurring risks in Legal Aid costs work: Inconsistent Recording of Contingency Work Where work carried out during the outage is not accurately reconciled, claims may be incomplete or duplicated. Billing Errors Following System Restoration Returning to CCMS processes creates scope for procedural mistakes, particularly where firms attempt to retrospectively align work with system requirements. Increased Scrutiny of Disbursements Travel and subsistence claims may now be more closely examined, increasing the likelihood of reductions where justification is weak. Audit and Compliance Exposure Errors in recording, submission or evidence may not be identified until audit or assessment stage, at which point recovery can be significantly reduced. Why These Changes Matter Legal Aid costs recovery is already a highly structured and technical process. These updates increase the importance of: accurate time recording consistent use of CCMS proper evidencing of claims clear understanding of billing rules In many cases, issues do not arise because of the work undertaken, but because of how that work is recorded and presented within the system. This is why firms often instruct specialists in Legal Aid costs drafting and CCMS billing support to ensure claims are correctly prepared, compliant with current guidance, and maximised for recovery. Strategic Considerations Going Forward The direction of travel is clear. Legal Aid billing is becoming: more system-driven more compliance-focused more closely scrutinised Firms should treat billing as a structured process rather than an administrative task. Early attention to how work is recorded and submitted can prevent issues arising later in the claim lifecycle. This is particularly relevant in: High Cost Case Plans (HCCP) complex civil matters cases involving significant disbursements files affected by contingency period submissions Conclusion The latest Legal Aid Agency updates reinforce the importance of accurate billing, procedural compliance and careful handling of contingency work. The restoration of CCMS processes requires firms to review and reconcile work undertaken during the outage, while updated travel and subsistence guidance highlights the continued scrutiny applied to claims. For solicitors, the key takeaway is clear, effective costs recovery depends not only on the work carried out, but on how that work is recorded, structured and presented within the Legal Aid system. FAQ What is contingency work in Legal Aid billing? Contingency work refers to work completed and submitted outside standard CCMS processes during system disruption periods, which must later be reconciled within the system. Can travel and subsistence claims be reduced? Yes. Claims may be reduced where they are not properly evidenced, proportionate or reasonable in the context of the case. Do firms need to resubmit contingency work on CCMS? Firms must ensure that all work carried out during the contingency period is correctly recorded and reconciled within CCMS to avoid duplication or omission. Need Support with Legal Aid Billing? If your firm requires support with CCMS claims, High Cost Case Plans or Legal Aid costs drafting, SPH Costs provides specialist assistance tailored to publicly funded work: Legal Aid Costs Drafting Services High Cost Case Plans (HCCP)

The Legal Aid Agency has now largely caught up with the backlog affecting civil billing, with current processing data showing a return to near real-time assessment for many claims. For firms undertaking Legal Aid work, this represents a significant shift. Earlier delays created uncertainty around payment timelines. As processing speeds improve, the focus moves back to the quality and structure of claims being submitted. Current Processing Position Recent LAA data indicates: Court assessed, hourly rate and fixed fee claims are being processed around mid-April 2026 FAS and POA claims are being processed within approximately 2 to 4 working days Payment is typically received within a further 5 to 9 days following processing This reflects a much faster and more stable position compared with earlier in the year. What Has Changed At the start of 2026, many firms were dealing with: delays following the CCMS portal disruption a backlog of applications and billing uncertainty around processing times The current position suggests that the LAA has worked through much of that backlog, and processing has returned to a more predictable cycle. Why This Matters More Than It Appears When processing times are slow, delays often mask underlying issues in Legal Aid billing. When processing speeds improve, those issues are exposed much more quickly. Firms may now experience: faster queries on unclear or unsupported claims earlier reductions where billing narratives are weak quicker rejection of claims that do not align with funding or procedure increased pressure on cashflow where claims are not prepared correctly In practical terms, faster processing means there is less margin for error. The Risk for Legal Aid Firms Where billing practices are inconsistent or reactive, improved LAA turnaround times can create new problems rather than solve existing ones. Common risks include: claims submitted without sufficient supporting detail time recording that does not align with case progression unclear justification for higher grade fee earners issues arising from amendments to funding certificates delays caused by avoidable queries or reassessment These issues are not new, but they are now encountered more quickly. What Firms Should Do Now As processing times stabilise, the focus should shift to ensuring that claims are ready for assessment at the point of submission. This includes: preparing clear and structured billing narratives aligning work undertaken with funding authority ensuring claims are proportionate and supported identifying potential issues before submission maintaining consistency across similar matters A proactive approach reduces the risk of delay, query and reduction. High-Cost Family Work and Case Plans For high-cost family matters, current data indicates that case plans are being processed within April 2026 timeframes, with correspondence dealt with more quickly. For firms managing these matters, the interaction between case plan approval, billing progression and costs recovery remains critical. Delays at the case plan stage can still affect when work becomes billable, even where processing times for claims themselves have improved. Where Specialist Costs Support Adds Value As processing times improve, the quality of Legal Aid costs drafting becomes increasingly important. SPH Costs supports firms with: CCMS claims and submissions High Cost Case Plans and amendments escape fee claims responses to LAA queries and reductions ongoing Legal Aid billing strategy The focus is not simply on preparing claims, but on ensuring that they are structured in a way that supports recovery and avoids avoidable challenge. In Summary The LAA’s latest update shows that processing times for Legal Aid billing have improved significantly. While this is positive for cashflow, it also places greater emphasis on the quality of claims being submitted. Firms that adopt a structured and proactive approach to Legal Aid billing are more likely to benefit from faster turnaround times, while those relying on reactive or inconsistent processes may encounter issues more quickly. Need Support with Legal Aid Billing? If your firm requires support with CCMS claims, High Cost Case Plans or Legal Aid costs drafting, SPH Costs provides specialist assistance tailored to publicly funded work: Legal Aid Costs Drafting Services High Cost Case Plans (HCCP)

In Intermediate Track litigation, the most important costs argument is often not whether fixed recoverable costs apply, but which complexity band applies. That question matters because the band drives the figures in CPR 45.50 Table 14. A Band 4 claim carries substantially greater recoverable costs than a Band 1 claim at every important stage of the case. If you want the actual figures, read our Intermediate Track Costs Table. If you want a practical explanation of what can be recovered at each stage, read our Intermediate Track Fixed Recoverable Costs guide. What are the Intermediate Track complexity bands? Intermediate Track claims are divided into four bands. Band 1 Band 1 is for the more straightforward Intermediate Track cases. These are usually claims with relatively limited factual and legal issues, a narrower evidential burden and less procedural complexity. Band 2 Band 2 is often the starting point for standard Intermediate Track litigation. Many routine civil disputes sit here where the case is not especially simple, but also does not justify the higher recoverable costs associated with Bands 3 or 4. Band 3 Band 3 covers materially more demanding cases. In practice, this is where disputes often intensify because one side argues the matter is a standard Band 2 case, while the other argues the issues, evidence or case management requirements justify Band 3. Band 4 Band 4 is reserved for the most complex cases that still remain within the Intermediate Track. It is not a badge to be claimed casually. If a case genuinely requires the highest level of procedural and evidential work while still remaining suitable for the Intermediate Track, Band 4 may be justified. Why banding matters Banding is not a technical sideshow. It affects the entire cost structure of the case. A higher band can mean: higher recoverable costs at every cumulative stage higher advocacy fees higher additional fees for mediation or JSM attendance different settlement leverage different reserve positions for paying parties and insurers That is why band allocation should be considered early, not left until costs are argued after the event. Where band disputes usually arise In real cases, disputes usually arise over whether the matter has been overstated. Typical arguments include: whether the issues are genuinely complex or just heavily pleaded whether expert evidence really increases complexity whether the volume of documents is exceptional or merely routine whether the trial requirements justify a higher band whether the claim should be in the Intermediate Track at all That is where a lot of parties go wrong. They confuse work done with complexity justified. Those are not the same thing. Practical warning for paying parties If a receiving party pushes for a higher band, the issue should be tested early. Once the case proceeds on an inflated footing, the costs consequences can grow quickly. A Band 2 versus Band 3 dispute, or a Band 3 versus Band 4 dispute, can materially affect: costs exposure settlement approach valuation of risk the economics of trial What this page does not do This page is about band allocation and disputes. It is not the place for the full CPR figures. For the full Table 14 figures, use our Intermediate Track Costs Table page below. For a practical walkthrough of what can be recovered at different stages, use our Intermediate Track Fixed Recoverable Costs page below. See the full Intermediate Track Costs Table Read our Intermediate Track Fixed Recoverable Costs guide Need help challenging a Bill of Costs? SPH Costs advises paying parties, insurers and local authorities on complexity band disputes, exposure and strategy in Intermediate Track costs cases. Challenging Costs Under the Intermediate Track While fixed recoverable costs apply, disputes still arise regarding: complexity band allocation stage reached additional or excluded work If you are facing a costs dispute, see our Detailed Assessment Costs Guide or Challenge a Bill of Costs.

Intermediate Track fixed recoverable costs are set by CPR 45.50 and Table 14. The figures depend on two things above all others: the complexity band and the stage reached in the litigation. This page explains what those figures mean in practice. It is not a substitute for the full table. If you want the full CPR figures in one place, go to our Intermediate Track Costs Table. If you want to understand how band allocation works, go to our Intermediate Track Complexity Bands guide. What costs are recoverable in the Intermediate Track? For as long as the claim remains within the Intermediate Track and is not allocated to the Multi-Track, the recoverable costs are: the fixed costs in Table 14 the permitted disbursements under Section IX That means the real arguments usually become: which band applies which stage has been reached whether a separate add-on fee is actually recoverable whether the disbursement claimed falls outside work already covered by the fixed regime The figures are not all built the same way One of the easiest mistakes is to treat every number in Table 14 the same way. That is wrong. Cumulative stages The figures in S1, S3, S4, S5, S6 and S8 are cumulative totals up to and including that stage. Separate additional sums The figures in S2, S7 and S9 to S15 are separate sums if those steps are carried out. That distinction matters. If someone reads the table badly, the claim can be under-valued or overstated. What the figures look like in practice Band 1 Band 1 is the lowest-cost Intermediate Track band, but the figures still rise meaningfully as the case progresses. Examples: S1: £1,652 + 3% of damages S3: £4,129 + 10% of damages S6: £6,091 + 15% of damages S8: £6,813 + 15% of damages, less £599 if the trial bundle was not prepared S10 day 1 advocacy fee: £3,303 Even in a lower band case, the difference between early settlement and trial can be substantial. Band 2 Band 2 is often the key battleground because it is commonly argued to be the proper band for standard Intermediate Track litigation. Examples: S1: £5,162 + 6% of damages S3: £7,949 + 12% of damages S6: £15,485 + 16% of damages S8: £17,550 + 20% of damages, less £898 if the trial bundle was not prepared S10 day 1 advocacy fee: £3,613 Band 3 Band 3 materially increases exposure. Examples: S1: £6,607 + 6% of damages S3: £9,394 + 12% of damages S6: £16,517 + 16% of damages S8: £19,614 + 20% of damages, less £1,239 if the trial bundle was not prepared S10 day 1 advocacy fee: £4,129 Band 4 Band 4 is the highest-cost band within the Intermediate Track. Examples: S1: £9,601 + 8% of damages S3: £13,420 + 14% of damages S6: £24,776 + 18% of damages S8: £29,938 + 22% of damages, less £1,445 if the trial bundle was not prepared S10 day 1 advocacy fee: £5,988 That is why band disputes matter so much. A case positioned in the wrong band can distort the whole valuation of costs exposure. Additional fees people overlook Some of the most important figures are the separate add-on sums rather than the headline cumulative stages. S2 Specialist legal representative advice or drafting: Band 1: £2,065 Band 2: £2,065 Band 3: £2,374, or £3,613 if counsel also drafts a defence to a counterclaim Band 4: £2,374, or £3,613 if counsel also drafts a defence to a counterclaim S7 Specialist legal representative advice following defence: Band 1: £1,445 Band 2: £1,755 Band 3: £2,374 Band 4: £2,994 S13 and S14 ADR can also generate additional recoverable sums: S13 mediation/JSM fee: £1,239 in every band S14 specialist attendance fee: £1,445 in Band 1, £1,755 in Band 2, £2,065 in Band 3, £2,374 in Band 4 S16 Where a listed trial is removed from the list or settled shortly before trial: on the day of trial or not more than 1 day before trial: 100% of the S10 advocacy fee more than 1 day but not more than 5 days before trial: 75% of the S10 advocacy fee Worked examples Worked Example 1: Band 2 Claim Settled After Defence Suppose an Intermediate Track claim is allocated to Complexity Band 2 and settles after the Defence has been served, but before later case management stages are reached. At Stage S3, the recoverable costs under Table 14 are: £7,949 + 12% of damages If damages were agreed at £50,000, the costs calculation would be: Fixed sum: £7,949 Percentage element: £6,000 Total recoverable costs: £13,949 (plus any permitted disbursements) This illustrates why the stage reached and damages figure both matter when assessing exposure. Worked Example 2: Band 4 case proceeding close to trial Suppose an Intermediate Track claim is allocated to Complexity Band 4 and proceeds close to trial, reaching Stage S8. At Stage S8, the recoverable costs under Table 14 are: £29,938 + 22% of damages If damages were agreed or awarded at £100,000, the costs calculation would be: Fixed sum: £29,938 Percentage element: £22,000 Total recoverable costs: £51,938 This may be subject to the applicable deduction if that party did not prepare the trial bundle. If a mediation or joint settlement meeting also took place, separate additional fees may be recoverable under S13 and S14, where the relevant conditions are satisfied. This example shows how costs exposure can rise significantly where a higher-band claim proceeds close to trial. Disbursements In Intermediate Track claims, the court may allow disbursements that have been reasonably incurred, provided they are not for work already covered by the fixed costs regime. That matters because parties sometimes try to relabel ordinary fee-earner work as a disbursement. That should be challenged. Where disputes arise Common disputes include: wrong complexity band wrong stage claimed incorrect treatment of cumulative and separate stages unjustified S2 or S7 claims ADR fees claimed when the factual basis is weak inflated disbursements for work already covered by fixed costs Important scope point Noise induced hearing loss claims have their own separate Table 15 regime. They should not be mixed into a general Intermediate Track fixed recoverable costs page unless you are specifically writing about NIHL. See the full Intermediate Track Costs Table Read our guide to Intermediate Track Complexity Bands Challenge a Bill of Costs SPH Costs advises paying parties, insurers and local authorities on band disputes, fixed costs exposure and incorrect Table 14 claims. Frequently Asked Questions What are Intermediate Track fixed recoverable costs? They are the fixed litigation costs set by CPR 45.50 and Table 14 for claims allocated to, or normally suitable for, the Intermediate Track. Do fixed recoverable costs depend on damages? Yes. Many Table 14 stages combine a fixed sum with a percentage of damages. Does the complexity band matter? Yes. Band 1 to Band 4 classification has a major impact on recoverable costs throughout the case. Can disbursements still be claimed? Yes, where reasonably incurred and not already covered by the fixed costs regime. Can a paying party challenge the claim? Yes. Disputes often arise over banding, stage reached, additional fees and disbursements. Challenging Costs Under the Intermediate Track While fixed recoverable costs apply, disputes still arise regarding: complexity band allocation stage reached additional or excluded work If you are facing a costs dispute, see our Detailed Assessment Costs Guide or Challenge a Bill of Costs.

This page provides the Table 14 figures for Intermediate Track fixed recoverable costs under CPR 45.50. If you need worked examples or practical explanations, see our Intermediate Track Complexity Bands guide. If you need help with band allocation, see our Intermediate Track Fixed Recoverable Costs guide. The Intermediate Track costs table is set out at CPR 45.50 and Table 14. It applies to claims which would normally be, or are, allocated to the Intermediate Track, and it sets out the fixed recoverable costs allowed at each litigation stage. For as long as the case is not allocated to the Multi-Track, the only recoverable costs are the fixed costs in Table 14 together with the permitted disbursements under Section IX. This page is a reference guide to the actual figures. If you want an explanation of how the court decides whether a claim belongs in Band 1, 2, 3 or 4, read our guide. If you want to understand what these figures mean in practice, read our guide. How to read Table 14 Before using the figures, there are four points that matter: 1. Banding drives the level of costs Each case is assigned to Complexity Band 1, 2, 3 or 4. The higher the band, the higher the recoverable costs. 2. Some stages are cumulative The figures in S1, S3, S4, S5, S6 and S8 are cumulative totals up to and including that stage. 3. Some stages are separate add-on sums The figures in S2, S7 and S9 to S15 are separate sums if that step is actually carried out. 4. Damages-based percentages apply A number of stages include a fixed figure plus a percentage of damages, so the final recoverable amount depends on both the band and the damages recovered. Table 14: Intermediate Track fixed costs S1 — From pre-issue up to and including service of defence Band 1: £1,652 + 3% of damages Band 2: £5,162 + 6% of damages Band 3: £6,607 + 6% of damages Band 4: £9,601 + 8% of damages S2 — Specialist legal representative advice or drafting a statement of case Band 1: £2,065 Band 2: £2,065 Band 3: £2,374, or £3,613 if counsel also drafts a defence to a counterclaim Band 4: £2,374, or £3,613 if counsel also drafts a defence to a counterclaim S3 — From service of defence to CMC date or directions order under 28.2 Band 1: £4,129 + 10% of damages Band 2: £7,949 + 12% of damages Band 3: £9,394 + 12% of damages Band 4: £13,420 + 14% of damages S4 — To date set for inspection of documents Band 1: £4,749 + 12% of damages Band 2: £9,704 + 14% of damages Band 3: £11,356 + 14% of damages Band 4: £16,517 + 16% of damages S5 — To later of witness statements or expert reports Band 1: £5,368 + 12% of damages Band 2: £11,356 + 16% of damages Band 3: £12,388 + 16% of damages Band 4: £20,647 + 18% of damages S6 — To PTR or 14 days before trial, whichever is earlier Band 1: £6,091 + 15% of damages Band 2: £15,485 + 16% of damages Band 3: £16,517 + 16% of damages Band 4: £24,776 + 18% of damages S7 — Specialist legal representative advice following defence Band 1: £1,445 Band 2: £1,755 Band 3: £2,374 Band 4: £2,994 S8 — From end of S6 to date of trial Band 1: £6,813 + 15% of damages, less £599 if that party did not prepare the trial bundle Band 2: £17,550 + 20% of damages, less £898 if that party did not prepare the trial bundle Band 3: £19,614 + 20% of damages, less £1,239 if that party did not prepare the trial bundle Band 4: £29,938 + 22% of damages, less £1,445 if that party did not prepare the trial bundle S9 — Attendance of legal representative at trial per day Band 1: £599 Band 2: £898 Band 3: £1,239 Band 4: £1,445 S10 — Advocacy fee day 1 Band 1: £3,303 Band 2: £3,613 Band 3: £4,129 Band 4: £5,988 S11 — Advocacy fee for subsequent trial days Band 1: £1,445 Band 2: £1,755 Band 3: £2,065 Band 4: £2,994 S12 — Reserved judgment and consequential matters All bands: £599 S13 — ADR fee where mediation or JSM takes place All bands: £1,239 S14 — Specialist legal representative attendance at mediation or JSM Band 1: £1,445 Band 2: £1,755 Band 3: £2,065 Band 4: £2,374 S15 — Approval of settlement for child Band 1: £1,239 Band 2: £1,445 Band 3: £1,755 Band 4: £2,065 S16 — Advocacy fee where trial is vacated or settled shortly before trial On the day of trial, or not more than 1 day before: 100% of the applicable S10 advocacy fee More than 1 day but not more than 5 days before trial: 75% of the applicable S10 advocacy fee Why this table matters The table matters because it sets the framework for: costs exposure settlement leverage reserves advocacy fee entitlement ADR fee entitlement disputes about stage reached and banding In practice, most arguments are not about whether fixed costs apply, but about which band applies, which stage has been reached, and whether additional sums such as S2, S7, S13 or S14 are recoverable. Related guides Intermediate Track Complexity Bands Intermediate Track Fixed Recoverable Costs Challenge a Bill of Costs Frequently Asked Questions What is Table 14? Table 14 sets out the fixed recoverable costs for claims in the Intermediate Track. Are the figures cumulative? Some stages are cumulative totals, while others are separate additional sums. Do damages affect costs? Yes. Several stages combine a fixed amount with a percentage of damages. Challenging Costs Under the Intermediate Track While fixed recoverable costs apply, disputes still arise regarding: complexity band allocation stage reached additional or excluded work If you are facing a costs dispute, see our Detailed Assessment Costs Guide or Challenge a Bill of Costs.

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: Detailed Assessment Paying Party Services Paying Party Costs Lawyers Points of Dispute for Paying Parties 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 Detailed Assessment Strategy Guides Detailed Assessment of Costs: The Complete Guide Paying Party Detailed Assessment Strategy How Paying Parties Challenge a Bill of Costs Proportionality Challenges at Detailed Assessment Fee Earner Delegation Challenges at Detailed Assessment Guideline Hourly Rates 2026 Intermediate Track Costs Tables