Challenging a bill of costs is a central part of paying party strategy at detailed assessment. When a bill is served, paying parties must assess whether the sums claimed are reasonable and proportionate. Solicitors, insurers and public bodies frequently instruct specialist costs lawyers to challenge bills through the detailed assessment process. Effective challenges begin with a structured review of the bill, the litigation history and the applicable costs regime, followed by the preparation of carefully drafted Points of Dispute which identify the reductions sought. Where a bill of costs is substantial or heavily contested, the approach taken at the outset can significantly affect the level of reduction achieved. Points of Dispute Drafting Service: https://www.sphcosts.com/pod Paying Party Costs Dispute Services: https://www.sphcosts.com/paying-party-costs-lawyers Common Grounds for Challenging a Bill of Costs A bill of costs is not accepted at face value. Paying parties routinely challenge: hourly rates and grade of fee earner duplication of work lack of delegation disproportionate time claimed work outside the scope of the claim non-compliance with costs management orders These issues form the foundation of Points of Dispute  and shape negotiation strategy . For a detailed guide to Points of Dispute: https://www.sphcosts.com/post/points-of-dispute-detailed-assessment Hourly Rate and Guideline Hourly Rate Challenges One of the most common reductions arises from hourly rate disputes. Paying parties assess whether the rates claimed exceed the Guideline Hourly Rates  and whether the level of fee earner was appropriate for the work undertaken. Routine tasks carried out at senior level frequently attract reductions. Proportionality and Delegation Even where work was reasonably undertaken, costs may be reduced if the total is disproportionate to the value, complexity, and importance of the claim. Proper delegation to appropriate grades is central to proportionality and is a key area of challenge at assessment. Fixed Costs Scope Arguments Where fixed recoverable costs may apply, paying parties consider whether the claim falls within the regime and whether work claimed sits outside the permitted stages. Scope disputes often depend on the procedural history of the litigation and are aligned with fixed costs principles . Recent Court of Appeal authority has highlighted how the timing of settlement offers can affect costs recovery. In Attersley v UK Insurance Ltd  the court clarified that late acceptance of a Part 36 offer may still limit recovery to the earlier fixed costs regime. Procedural and Conduct Challenges Failures in procedural compliance, unnecessary applications, or unreasonable conduct may affect recoverability. Paying parties rely on these factors to argue for reductions or adverse costs consequences in line with recoverability and conduct principles . How Much Can a Bill of Costs Be Reduced? The level of reduction depends on the issues raised and the evidence supporting the challenge. Significant reductions often arise from hourly rate disputes, duplication of work, excessive partner involvement and failures in delegation. Where Points of Dispute clearly identify these issues, substantial reductions may be achieved through negotiation before detailed assessment. How Long Does It Take to Challenge a Bill of Costs? The primary mechanism for challenging a bill of costs is the service of Points of Dispute. The time required to challenge a bill of costs depends on the complexity of the litigation and whether the dispute resolves through negotiation or proceeds to detailed assessment. After a bill of costs is served, the paying party usually has 21 days to serve Points of Dispute . Once Points of Dispute and Replies have been exchanged, many disputes resolve through negotiation. Where agreement cannot be reached, the matter proceeds to provisional assessment or an oral detailed assessment hearing , depending on the value of the bill and the issues in dispute. In practice, many bills are reduced significantly before a hearing where the key issues, such as hourly rates, delegation, duplication of work and proportionality, have been clearly identified in the Points of Dispute. Strategy Before Serving Points of Dispute Effective challenges begin with a structured review of the pleadings, budgets, complexity, and value of the claim. This allows Points of Dispute to focus on the areas most likely to produce reductions and supports commercial settlement before assessment. When to Instruct a Costs Lawyer Where bills involve significant sums or complex issues, specialist input can materially reduce overall costs exposure and improve the outcome of detailed assessment. Well-structured Points of Dispute often determine whether a dispute resolves through negotiation or proceeds to assessment. See our Points of Dispute drafting service: https://www.sphcosts.com/pod The Detailed Assessment Process The detailed assessment process typically follows these stages: • Service of the bill of costs • Service of Points of Dispute by the paying party • Replies served by the receiving party • Negotiation between the parties • Provisional or oral detailed assessment hearing Most disputes resolve before the hearing stage where the issues have been clearly defined in Points of Dispute. Reducing Exposure Before Detailed Assessment Most costs disputes are resolved through negotiation. Clear, evidence-based Points of Dispute improve the paying party’s position and frequently result in substantial reductions prior to a hearing. Typical Reductions at Detailed Assessment Hourly rates exceeding Guideline Hourly Rates Excessive time claimed for routine work Delegation to inappropriate fee earner grades Duplication between multiple fee earners Disproportionate phases of work Time Limit for Points of Dispute Points of Dispute must normally be served within 21 days of service of the bill of costs  unless the court orders otherwise. Failure to respond in time may expose the paying party to default costs consequences. What Happens if Points of Dispute Are Not Served If the paying party fails to serve Points of Dispute within the required time, the receiving party may apply for a default costs certificate . A default costs certificate effectively entitles the receiving party to recover the costs claimed in the bill without detailed assessment. Under CPR Part 47, the receiving party can request the certificate where the time for serving Points of Dispute has expired and no extension has been agreed. Once issued, the default costs certificate confirms the amount payable under the bill of costs. A paying party may apply to set aside the default costs certificate , but the court will expect a proper explanation for the failure to serve Points of Dispute and evidence that there is a genuine dispute as to the amount claimed. Applications to set aside are discretionary and may expose the paying party to further costs consequences. For this reason, early review of the bill and preparation of Points of Dispute is essential to protect the paying party’s position and avoid procedural default. Provisional Assessment vs Oral Detailed Assessment Many detailed assessment proceedings are initially determined through provisional assessment , a paper-based process in which a costs judge assesses the bill of costs, Points of Dispute and Replies without an oral hearing. Provisional assessment currently applies to bills of costs up to the relevant financial threshold under CPR Part 47. Following provisional assessment, the court issues a written determination indicating the amount allowed. If either party considers that the provisional decision is incorrect, they may request an oral detailed assessment hearing , provided the applicable threshold for review is met. At an oral hearing the parties can address the judge directly and challenge specific aspects of the provisional decision. However, there is a potential costs risk. Where the party requesting the hearing fails to improve their position beyond the required margin, the court may order that party to pay the costs of the hearing. As a result, paying party strategy often focuses on ensuring that Points of Dispute clearly identify the strongest reduction arguments at the outset , increasing the likelihood of a favourable provisional assessment or strengthening the position if the matter proceeds to an oral hearing. Key Takeaways for Paying Parties Bills of costs can be challenged on hourly rates, proportionality, delegation, and scope Guideline Hourly Rates are a starting point, not an entitlement Fixed costs and procedural compliance can limit recovery Structured Points of Dispute improve negotiation outcomes Early strategy reduces exposure at detailed assessment Well-structured challenges frequently result in substantial reductions before a matter reaches a detailed assessment hearing. Where costs exposure is significant, early specialist involvement can materially improve the outcome. See our paying party costs dispute services: https://www.sphcosts.com/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

This article discusses a specific Part 36 costs decision. For broader guidance on Part 36 and Fixed Recoverable Costs, see our updated articles: https://www.sphcosts.com/post/part-36-late-acceptance-fixed-costs-attersley https://www.sphcosts.com/post/fixed-recoverable-costs-guide For some time there has been a division of opinion on the recoverable costs of a Claimant in a “fixed costs” claim who obtains a Judgment more advantageous than his or her Part 36 offer. One train of thought was that if it was a fixed costs matter, then no more than fixed costs could ever be recoverable. The other train of thought was that the usual provisions of Part 36 would apply and that from the date of expiry of the “relevant period” of the Part 36 offer, the Claimant should be entitled to costs on the Indemnity Basis. These different thoughts found expression in 2 cases at first instance where in Broadhurst v Tan, HHJ Robinson sitting at Sheffield found that the fixed costs provisions would prevail, but in Smith v Taylor HHJ Friedman, sitting at Newcastle upon Tyne, found that the Part 36 provisions should prevail. The matter has now been resolved by the Court of Appeal where the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, came down in favour of the Part 36 provisions prevailing (see Broadhurst (1) Taylor (2) v Tan(1) Smith (2) [2016] EWCA Civ 94). Both cases were matters which followed the RTA protocol for low value personal injury claims. The fixed costs provisions are set out in CPR 45 IIIA. In both cases, the Claimants made Part 36 offers which they bettered upon final Judgment. The cases involved the application of Part 36 prior to the changes made on 6 April 2015, but whilst the numbering of the rule has changed, the underlying principles for the purposes of this issue have remained the same. By way of reminder, rule 45.29 B provides that in an RTA case where the Claims Notification Form was submitted on or after 31 July 2013, the only costs allowed are those fixed costs set out in rule 45.29 C together with the disbursements set out in 45.29 I. The relevant provision in Part 36 is 36.14 (3) which provides for various adverse consequences for a Defendant where a Claimant betters his or her own offer, of which the most fundamental for present purposes is that Indemnity Basis costs are recoverable from the date of expiry of the “relevant period” of the Part 36 offer. Rule 36.14 A specifically deals with the costs consequences in matters to which CPR 45 III A apply. The reason why this matter fell to be determined however is that the rules do not explicitly state that the fixed costs rules no longer apply in those circumstances. The Master of the Rolls found in favour of the Claimants’ arguments. Those arguments had been that there was clearly a tension between the provisions of 45.29 B and 36.14A, but that where it was clear from the express wording of 36.14 A (1) that the part 36 provisions applied to fixed costs matters as a whole then in the absence of some specific wording dis-applying particular provisions, then those provisions should indeed apply. It was argued that Part 36 was a self-contained procedural code and that where fixed costs were intended to prevail these were explicitly set out (for example 36.10 A). It was very telling that the general provisions of 36.14 (3) had not been modified in any way. The Claimant also made reference to an Explanatory Memorandum which accompanied the revision to the Rules (although it did not form part of the Rules) which fairly clearly stated that the intention was that a Claimant with a successful Part 36 offer would not be restricted to fixed costs. The Defendant argued that there was no clear guidance in the Rules but that if the Claimants’ position were to be adopted then it would be very difficult upon any assessment to work out what costs would be payable because only fixed costs would be recoverable up to the date of expiry of the relevant period, but that date would almost certainly fall somewhere between the various stages of fixed costs provided for within the rules. Both the Claimants and the Defendants argued for the principal that specific provisions in the rules should prevail over the general provisions. However, the parties were at odds as to which of 45.29 B and 36.14 A was to be the general as opposed to the specific provision. The Master of the Rolls found that he did not have to decide that point. He found that as a matter of straightforward interpretation, the Part 36 provisions should prevail. His analysis is best put in his own words: “If rule 45.29B stood alone, then subject to various rules in Part 45 which are immaterial, the only costs allowable in a section IIIA case to a claimant who was awarded costs following judgment in his favour would be “(a) the fixed costs in rule 45.29C and (b) disbursements in accordance with rule 45.29I”. But rule 45.29B does not stand alone. The need to take account of Part 36 offers in section IIIA cases was recognised by the draftsman of the rules. Indeed, rule 36.14A is headed “costs consequences following judgment where section IIIA of Part 45 applies”. Rule 45.29F (8) provides that, where a Part 36 offer is accepted in a section IIIA case, “rule 36.10A will apply instead of this rule”. And rule 45.29F(9) provides that, where in such a case upon judgment being entered the claimant fails to obtain a judgment more advantageous than the claimant’s Part 36 offer, “rule 36.14A will apply instead of this rule”. Rule 45.29F does not, however, make provision as to what should happen where the claimant makes a successful Part 36 offer” “Rule 36.14A(8) provides further support for my conclusion. This provision states that in a section IIIA case the parties (i.e. claimant as well as defendant) are entitled to disbursements allowed in accordance with rule 45.29I in any period for which costs are payable to them. This reflects rule 45.29B(b). If, as Mr Laughland contends, rule 45.29B prevailed over rule 36.14A in any event, this provision would have been unnecessary. It is significant that rule 36.14A does not contain a provision which reflects rule 45.29B(a) and 45.29C. In my view, the fact that rule 36.14A contains provision for payment of disbursements in accordance with rule 45.29B(b), but not for payment of fixed costs in accordance with rule 45.29B(a) confirms that the interpretation that I have adopted above is correct”. He was in no doubt as to the true meaning of the Rules but said that even if there had been some doubt, it would have been permissible to take account of the Explanatory Memorandum which gave further support to the conclusion he had reached. In relation to the difficulty expressed by the Defendant as to how to calculate the costs payable to the Claimant, his suggested solution was fairly simple. The Claimant would be awarded fixed costs at the level provided for in the last stage reached and then Indemnity Basis costs from expiry of the relevant period of the Claimant’s Part 36 offer. He accepted that this might be a generous outcome for Claimants but felt that this was consistent with the general scheme and thought underlying it that Claimants should be rewarded for making sensible Part 36 offers at an early stage.

Key Takeaways • SCCO introduces Document Upload Centre for supporting papers • Bill of costs must still be issued via CE-File • DUC bundles must be PDF and chronological • One bundle preferred where possible The Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) has issued revised guidance concerning the filing of supporting papers in Court of Protection bills of costs. The new guidance introduces the Document Upload Centre (DUC) as a method for submitting supporting documentation electronically when lodging Court of Protection bills for assessment. The updated SCCO guidance was issued on 16 March 2026 and takes effect from 20 April 2026. For costs lawyers and law costs draftsmen preparing Court of Protection bills, the guidance clarifies how supporting papers should be filed, how bundles should be structured, and when documentation should be uploaded. This article explains the SCCO Document Upload Centre (DUC) process and the practical implications for practitioners preparing Court of Protection costs bills. SCCO Court of Protection Bills – Quick Guidance Summary The key points from the SCCO guidance are: • Supporting papers may now be uploaded electronically using the Document Upload Centre (DUC) • The bill of costs itself must still be filed via CE-File • Supporting papers should normally be uploaded in one bundle where possible • Documents must be in chronological order • Files must be in PDF format • Bundles should contain clear headings and indexing These requirements apply to supporting documentation for Court of Protection costs assessments conducted by the SCCO. What Is the SCCO Document Upload Centre (DUC)? The Document Upload Centre (DUC) is an electronic portal that allows practitioners to upload supporting papers relating to Court of Protection bills of costs. The system is intended to assist the Senior Courts Costs Office in reviewing documentation efficiently during costs assessment. It is important to note that the DUC is only used for supporting papers. The following documents must still be issued through CE-File in the usual way: • the bill of costs • the N258B request for detailed assessment • the court order authorising the bill to be assessed Once the bill has been issued, supporting documentation can then be uploaded to the SCCO Document Upload Centre. Access to the DUC is obtained by contacting the SCCO. When Should Supporting Papers Be Uploaded? The SCCO guidance distinguishes between existing cases and new Court of Protection matters. Existing SCCO cases Where the matter already has an SCCO reference number, supporting papers should be uploaded to the DUC at the same time the bill is lodged for issue via CE-File. New Court of Protection bills where the matter has not yet been allocated an SCCO reference number, supporting papers should be uploaded after the bill has been accepted and the reference number issued. For example: SC-2025-COP-001234. Confirming the Filing Method on CE-File when submitting a bill through CE-File, practitioners must confirm how supporting papers will be filed. This should be included within the “filing comments” section of the filing information page. Typical examples include: • “Supporting papers to follow via DUC” • “Supporting papers to be filed by post” If the intended method of filing is not confirmed, the filing may be rejected. Required Format for SCCO DUC Uploads Supporting papers uploaded to the Document Upload Centre must comply with specific format requirements. PDF format All files must be uploaded in PDF format. File naming conventions, file names should include: • the SCCO case reference • the protected party’s surname It is also helpful to identify the type of bill or period covered, for example: • General Management costs • statutory will application • property purchase or sale • gift application Bundle Structure for Supporting Papers The SCCO guidance indicates that one bundle is preferred where possible. Where multiple files are uploaded, each should be clearly labelled so that the contents can be easily identified by the Costs Officer. For example: SC-2025-COP-001234 – File 1 – Jan-March SC-2025-COP-001234 - File 2 – April-June Supporting papers should not be uploaded as multiple individual files containing single documents. Chronological Order of Documents All documents within the bundle should be organised in chronological order from the oldest to the newest. This assists the SCCO in locating the relevant documentation when reviewing the bill. Key Documents That Should Appear at the Start of the Bundle The SCCO guidance recommends that certain documents should appear at the beginning of the bundle or within a clearly labelled section. These include: • OPG102 and OPG105 forms • the client care letter • disbursement invoices including counsel’s fees where applicable File Notes, Emails and Attendance Notes should contain clear headings showing: • the date • the fee earner • the time claimed • the parties involved in the communication This assists the Costs Officer in cross-referencing documents with entries within the bill of costs. Indexing and Organisation of Supporting Papers to assist the SCCO in reviewing documentation efficiently, the bundle should ideally include: • an index or bookmarks • clear document descriptions • dates corresponding with the bill entries Where possible, duplicate documents or repeated email chains should be avoided. Physical Filing of Court of Protection Supporting Papers The SCCO guidance confirms that paper filing remains available. Where practitioners choose to file supporting papers physically, documents should be sent to the SCCO as soon as possible after receiving the CE-File acceptance notification, and in any event within 28 days. Where multiple bundles or boxes are filed, each should be clearly labelled to indicate: • the contents • the chronological order Practical Implications for Costs Draftsmen Although the revised SCCO guidance primarily concerns document filing, it reinforces the importance of clear and properly structured supporting papers. For costs draftsmen preparing Court of Protection bills, the guidance highlights several practical points: • supporting papers should correspond clearly with the bill entries • bundles should be clearly indexed and organised • documents should appear in chronological order • duplicate documentation should be avoided Well-organised supporting papers assist the SCCO in reviewing the bill and reduce the risk of delay during assessment. Court of Protection Costs Drafting Court of Protection costs are assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office under a distinct procedural framework. Practitioners preparing these bills must ensure that both the bill of costs and supporting documentation comply with SCCO practice. Further guidance on the assessment process can be found here: General Management Costs | Court of Protection & SCCO Assessment Our work includes: • preparation of bills of costs • detailed assessment proceedings • Court of Protection costs drafting Learn more about our specialist services here: Costs lawyers and law costs draftsmen Summary The SCCO has issued updated guidance introducing the Document Upload Centre (DUC) for the electronic submission of supporting papers in Court of Protection costs bills. While the bill itself must still be filed through CE-File, the DUC provides a structured method for uploading documentation used in support of the bill. The guidance emphasises the importance of: • correctly formatted PDF bundles • clear file naming conventions • chronological document order • indexed supporting papers For costs lawyers and law costs draftsmen preparing Court of Protection bills, compliance with these requirements will assist the SCCO in reviewing documentation efficiently and reduce the risk of delay during assessment.

Proportionality is now one of the most effective tools available in paying party costs  disputes on detailed assessment. Under CPR 44.3, costs which are disproportionate may be reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred, with any doubt resolved in favour of the paying party. In practice, this enables global reductions to bills that would otherwise survive line-by-line scrutiny. When used alongside hourly rate challenges, delegation arguments and targeted Points of Dispute , proportionality can materially reduce exposure and shift settlement dynamics. The CPR 44.3 Proportionality Test On the standard basis, the court will only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue and may reduce costs that are disproportionate even if they were reasonably incurred. Any doubt is resolved in favour of the paying party. This creates a distinct second stage of assessment beyond reasonableness. The “Stand Back” Approach on Detailed Assessment The court will first assess individual items for reasonableness and then stand back to consider whether the total figure is proportionate. If the overall sum is disproportionate, a broad-brush reduction may be applied. This global approach is where the most significant paying party reductions are achieved. The Five CPR 44.3(5) Factors in Practice Costs are proportionate if they bear a reasonable relationship to: The sums in issue The value of non-monetary relief The complexity of the litigation Conduct generating additional work Wider factors such as reputation or public importance Low-value claims with high incurred costs remain particularly vulnerable. Proportionality vs Reasonableness Reasonableness is assessed item by item. Proportionality is assessed globally. Costs can therefore be reasonable but still irrecoverable as disproportionate. This distinction underpins effective proportionality challenges in costs. Budgeted Cases and Proportionality Arguments An approved budget does not prevent proportionality reductions at detailed assessment. The court may still consider whether the total costs claimed bear a reasonable relationship to the matters in issue. Budget compliance is relevant but not determinative. Paying Party Strategy for Global Reductions Effective proportionality arguments should be linked to: Excessive Grade A/B time on routine tasks Failure to delegate Disproportionate work relative to claim value Over-litigation of straightforward issues Block-billed phases These points should be pleaded clearly in points of dispute and replies  rather than left to general submission. Proportionality should also be combined with guideline hourly rate challenges  to reinforce the global reduction argument. Delegation failures should be identified by reference to the delegation of work in costs budgeting  to demonstrate inappropriate fee earner allocation. Common Receiving Party Pitfalls Receiving parties frequently: Rely on reasonableness without addressing proportionality Fail to justify Grade A/B involvement Ignore the relationship between costs and value Treat budgets as a shield These approaches are vulnerable to global reductions on detailed assessment. Drafting Effective Points of Dispute on Proportionality Proportionality arguments should: Identify the total figure said to be proportionate Refer to the CPR 44.3(5) factors Link hourly rate, delegation and phase totals Invite a stand-back reduction A generic statement that costs are disproportionate is ineffective. Properly structured points of dispute and replies  are critical to advancing the argument. How We Assist Paying Parties with Proportionality Challenges Our approach to paying party costs  focuses on: Phase-based proportionality analysis Delegation and grade challenges Hourly rate reductions Global stand-back submissions This supports targeted negotiation strategy and effective advocacy at provisional and detailed assessment. Detailed Assessment Strategy Guides Detailed Assessment of Costs: The Complete Guide Paying Party Detailed Assessment Strategy How Paying Parties Challenge a Bill of Costs Fee Earner Delegation Challenges at Detailed Assessment Guideline Hourly Rates 2026 Intermediate Track Costs Tables Specialist support for paying parties in contested costs Early strategic proportionality arguments can materially reduce exposure.

Updated 11 March 2026 A Solicitors Act assessment allows a client to challenge the amount of a solicitor’s bill by asking the court to review the charges. The procedure arises under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 and is commonly used where a client disputes whether the fees charged are reasonable One of the key rules governing these assessments is the “one-fifth rule”, which determines who pays the costs of the assessment. Broadly speaking, if the client succeeds in reducing the solicitor’s bill by 20% or more, the solicitor may be required to pay the costs of the assessment. If the reduction is less than 20%, the client will usually have to pay those costs. Understanding how this rule operates is important for both solicitors and clients considering a Solicitors Act challenge. What Is a Solicitors Act Assessment? A Solicitors Act assessment is a court process used to review the amount payable under a solicitor’s bill of costs. It is separate from the detailed assessment process under CPR Part 47, which normally concerns costs between litigating parties rather than disputes between a solicitor and their own client. Where a client disputes a solicitor’s bill, the court may examine whether the charges were properly incurred and whether the amount claimed is reasonable. The process therefore provides a mechanism for resolving disputes about professional fees and ensuring that the costs charged are justified. The One-Fifth Rule Under the Solicitors Act Section 70(9) of the Solicitors Act contains the rule commonly referred to as the “one-fifth rule”. In simple terms: If the bill is reduced by 20% or more, the solicitor will normally pay the costs of the assessment. If the reduction is less than 20%, the client will usually have to pay the costs of the assessment. This rule creates an important tactical consideration for clients considering whether to challenge a solicitor’s bill. If the reduction achieved is relatively modest, the client may ultimately be responsible for the costs of the assessment proceedings themselves. However, the rule is not absolute. Courts retain discretion to depart from it where special circumstances exist. Special Circumstances and the Court’s Discretion Section 70(10) of the Solicitors Act allows the court to depart from the one-fifth rule where there are special circumstances relating to the bill or the conduct of the assessment. These circumstances may include factors such as: the way in which the assessment was conducted whether unnecessary issues were raised whether the dispute significantly increased the costs of the hearing the overall conduct of the parties Where such factors arise, the court may adjust the normal costs consequences of the assessment. The Court of Appeal Decision in Wilsons v Bentine The application of the one-fifth rule was considered in detail by the Court of Appeal in Wilsons Solicitors LLP v Bentine and Stone Rowe Brewer v Just Costs Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1168. In the Bentine  case, solicitors had delivered a bill of approximately £145,000. Following assessment, the court allowed about £95,000, representing a reduction of more than 20%. Ordinarily this would mean the solicitor should pay the costs of the assessment under the one-fifth rule. However, the costs judge found that special circumstances existed due to the way the client had conducted the proceedings, which had significantly increased the costs of the assessment. As a result, the solicitor was ordered to pay 60% of the client’s costs, demonstrating how the court’s discretion can alter the normal outcome. The Court of Appeal ultimately confirmed that the Solicitors Act operates as a self-contained statutory scheme, and that the natural meaning of the statute should be applied when determining the operation of the one-fifth rule. The Stone Rowe Brewer Case The related case of Stone Rowe Brewer v Just Costs Ltd involved bills totalling approximately £33,000, of which about £20,000 was disputed. The parties eventually settled the dispute for £23,700, representing a reduction of roughly 30%. Despite the reduction exceeding the one-fifth threshold, the costs judge considered that the solicitors had succeeded on the principal issue raised in the dispute and ordered the client to pay 70% of the solicitors’ costs of the assessment. On appeal, the High Court concluded that insufficient weight had been given to the reduction achieved and overturned that decision. The case demonstrates that the court will examine the overall circumstances of the dispute, rather than applying the one-fifth rule mechanically. Practical Implications of the One-Fifth Rule The key lesson from these decisions is that the 20% threshold is not the only factor determining the costs consequences of a Solicitors Act assessment. Courts will also consider: the issues raised in the assessment the conduct of the parties whether the dispute unnecessarily increased the length or complexity of the hearing Where complex or unusual issues are raised, the court may depart from the normal rule and adjust the costs order accordingly. Managing Costs Disputes Effectively Solicitors Act assessments remain relatively uncommon, but when they do arise they can be procedurally complex and expensive. Clear communication with clients about fees and regular updates regarding costs can significantly reduce the risk of disputes escalating to this stage. Where costs disputes do arise, specialist advice can help parties understand the potential consequences of the one-fifth rule and the court’s discretion regarding costs. For a broader explanation of how courts assess legal costs generally, see our Detailed Assessment of Costs Guide.

Requesting Provisional/Detailed Assessment of Costs – avoiding potential pitfalls. It is imperative that matters are not delayed unduly as, whilst permission to Commence or Request an Assessment, either Provisional or Detailed of Costs, out of time is no longer required, there are penalties for delays. In addition to the 3 months allowed for commencement of the assessment process (CPR 47.7), CPR 47.14 (1) further provides that “Where points of dispute are served in accordance with this Part, the receiving party must file a request for a detailed assessment hearing within 3 months of the expiry of the period for commencing detailed assessment proceedings.” hence there is, potentially, a maximum time of 6 months from the date of the Order or other authority for assessment in which to Request a Provisional or Detailed Assessment. Within that time period, and provided neither of the 3 month periods are exceeded, a paying party cannot seek any sanction against a paying party. If, however, such periods are exceeded it is open to the paying party to make and Application to the Court to compel commencement (CPR 47.8(1) &(2)) or to Request a Detailed Assessment (CPR 47.14(2) & (3)) within a given period and in default disallow all or part of the costs. Even in the event that such an Application is not made, it is still open to the paying party upon any Assessment to request the disallowance of interest for the period of any delay; CPR 47.8(3) & 47.14(4). It is therefore important to bear in mind these time limits, especially for Requesting Provisional or Detailed Assessment, as otherwise the consequences in both lost costs and interest can, potentially, be substantial. So, once a Bill of Costs has been served under a Notice of Commencement [N252], Points of Dispute and Replies have been served, and yet agreement still has not been reached between the parties, what next? Where the total costs claimed are £75k or less the costs will normally be dealt with by provisional assessment; CPR 47.15(1). “This rule applies to any detailed assessment proceedings commenced in the High Court or the County Court on or after 1 April 2013 in which the costs claimed are the amount set out in paragraph 14.1 of the practice direction supplementing this Part, or less” “The amount of costs referred to in rule 47.15(1) is £75,000.”; CPD 14.1 It is open for the parties to request that, because they consider the matter to be unsuitable for Provisional Assessment due to complexity etc, that it be assessed with the parties present in a more traditional Assessment Hearing and, further, also open to the Court to order that, while the matter is under £75,000.00, it is not suitable for Provisional Assessment; CPR 47.15(6). Such a decision is, however, entirely at the discretion of the Court. Further, parties should be aware that if the matter does not proceed by Provisional Assessment, but by a hearing with advocates present, the costs cap for Provisional Assessment of Costs and the potential protection which that may provide to a party (CPR 47.15(5)) will no longer apply. A request for Provisional/Detailed Assessment of Costs is made by filing the relevant form [N258] and associated documents at Court; this form may be downloaded and completed from the Courts website (1). Whilst details of the documents that need to be enclosed with the form are listed in the Practice Direction (section 13.2 supplementing CPR 47), fortunately and more for the assistance of all concerned, the N258 contains a check list of what needs to be sent to the Court with the request. Going through the “tick boxes” these are as follows: – 1. The document giving the right to detailed assessment; 2. The Notice of Commencement; 3. The Bill of Costs; 4. The Points of Dispute and Replies in the form of Precedent G(2); 5. A statement giving the names, address for service and references of all parties to whom the Court should give notice of hearing; 6. The relevant details of any additional liability claimed; 7. Copies of all the orders made by the Court relating to the costs of proceedings which are to be assessed; 8. Any fee notes of counsel or other disbursements relating to items in dispute; and 9. Where there is a dispute as to the receiving parties liability to pay, the client care letter delivered to the receiving party or the legal representatives retainer. Practitioners should pay particular attention to item 9 and check that those documents enclosed are compliant with the Rules as the effect on recoverability of additional liabilities may potentially be severe and further a failure to enclose such documents, in turn failing to appraise the Court of the retainer, may result in a Bill of Costs being assessed at nil for want of evidence of a valid retainer. If the request is for an Assessment of costs claimed in excess of £75,000.00, such an assessment will not be dealt with provisionally and thus the appropriate box confirming the cost claimed are over £75,000.00 should be ticked and an estimate of the anticipated time required for the hearing given. However where the costs are £75,000.00 or less then the other box should be ticked and an additional copy of the bill, together with a Statement of the Costs claimed in respect of the assessment provided, based on the assumption that there will not be an oral hearing, enclosed with the N258. When preparing the Statement of Costs in respect of a Provisional Assessment, whilst such costs are limited, in respect of between the parties recovery, under the cap prescribed by CPR 47.15(5) to £1,500.00 plus Vat and court fees, there is no requirement to so limit the schedule and, indeed, it is the writer’s view that showing the full extent of the costs actually incurred in the assessment process can only serve to enhance recoveries for the successful party to as close to, if not actually at the limit prescribed. In practice, applications for provisional or detailed assessment often expose wider strategic issues around budgeting, proportionality, and recoverability that can materially affect the outcome. Solicitors frequently instruct specialist Costs Lawyers or Law Costs Draftsmen at this stage to ensure assessment strategy aligns with the applicable procedural framework and judicial approach. Further detail on how specialist costs professionals support assessment proceedings is explained on our Costs Lawyers and Law Costs Draftsmen in England & Wales Where Part 8 (costs only) proceedings have been issued the a separate Statement of Costs should be prepared for those costs as the limitation under CPR 47.15(5) relates to the “…costs of the assessment…” only and thus should not include any other elements(3). (1) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65969741614fa2000df3a8c3/N258_0514.pdf ( 2 ) https://www.justice.gov.uk/documents/annex-precedent-q.pdf (3) whilst there is, as yet, no formal authority in this regard, the matter of Tasleem v Beverley [2013] EWCA Civ 1805 provides a useful guide as to what constitutes costs of assessment and what does not. Issues arising during provisional assessment often overlap with questions of recoverability, fee earner justification, and the way work has been structured within the bill. Where disputes concern resistance to claimed costs, proportionality arguments, or strategic reduction points raised by the opponent, these matters fall squarely within the landscape of paying party costs disputes , where procedural knowledge and assessment strategy directly influence outcomes. 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 debate over interest is one which has been ongoing since the inception of the aged legislation which still governs entitlement to it, section 17 of the Judgements Act 1838 as enacted, which stated “XVII​ Judgment Debts to carry Interest. And be it enacted, That every Judgment Debt shall carry Interest at the Rate of Four Pounds per Centum per Annum from the Time of entering up the Judgment, or from the Time of the Commencement of this Act in Cases of Judgments then entered up and not carrying Interest, until the same shall be satisfied, and such Interest may be levied under a Writ of Execution on such Judgment. “ and thus the positions were largely left open for the Courts to determine when interest should run from and to, with a discretion to disallow the same for any given periods, as they saw fit. Further guidance and interpretation with regard to when that entitlement should arise were then handed down over the course of some 145 years, with the courts ultimately adopting two approaches to interest as to when the same should run from, these being the ‘incipitur’ and ‘allocatur’ rules, the former providing for any entitlement to interest to run from the date upon which the Order for Costs is made, and the latter from the date upon which any liability for costs is quantified. The established rule which has largely prevailed across the years has been the incipitur rule, however debate has been ongoing as the Courts have expressed concerns and dissatisfaction with both, most notably in Erven Warnink BV v J Townsend & Sons (Hull) (No 2) [1983] 3 All ER 312 and more recently in Thomas v Bunn [1991] 1 AC 362 and Hunt -v- R M Douglas (Roofing) Ltd [1998] 3 All ER 823. After Hunt there was further change when the Civil Procedure Rules were introduced on 26 April 1999. Upon their introduction, section 17 of the Judgements Act 1838 was amended such that (1) Every judgment debt shall carry interest at the rate of… [currently 8]… pounds per centum per annum from such time as shall be prescribed by rules of court until the same shall be satisfied, and such interest may be levied under a writ of execution on such judgment. (2) Rules of court may provide for the court to disallow all or part of any interest otherwise payable under subsection (1). with the main change being that interest was now to run “…from such time as shall be prescribed by rules of court…”. The rules, in turn, at CPR 40.8(1) provided that (1) Where interest is payable on a judgment pursuant to section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 or section 74 of the County Courts Act 1984, the interest shall begin to run from the date that judgment is given unless – (a) a rule in another Part or a practice direction makes different provision; or (b) the court orders otherwise. and so the previously established principle that the Court retained the discretion to award interest from a date later than any costs order was preserved. So, it is fair to say that, whilst there has been an established principle that the incipitur rule prevails for a great many years, the position has never been set in stone and the Courts have retained a discretion to vary this position. And so it is that, in the matter of Involnert Management Inc v Aprilgrange Limited & Others [2015] EWHC 2834 (Comm) the Commercial Court was asked once more to consider the position as to when interest should apply from. The judgement of the Court focused on the single issue of interest, and noted continued dissatisfaction as to the established principles more traditionally applied, with Mr Justice Leggatt considering it to be “…desirable…” for a date from which interest should run to be “…some objective benchmark…”. In adopting a benchmark, Mr Justice Leggatt considered (at [18] to [24]) that there were 6 conclusions which could be reached, which were 1. that pursuant to Hunt the Judgments Act provided a default date from which interest would be payable, unless the Court orders interest to run from some other date; 2. that there was nothing within either “…the Judgments Act or the Civil Procedure Rules which expressly or impliedly restricts the power of the court under CPR 40.8(1) to order the interest payable under section 17 of the Judgments Act to run from a different date, or which requires exceptional circumstances to be shown before that power is exercised.” and in fact the contrary was true given the very broad discretion afforded to the Court to “…order otherwise…” being exercised to deal with cases justly, in accordance with the overriding objective; 3. “…that the date from which Judgments Act interest runs should not be deferred simply because it is at a considerably higher rate than commercial rates. The rate at which interest should be payable under the Judgments Act is a matter for the Secretary of State to decide. The court’s concern is to identify the date from which it is appropriate that interest should run on the judgment debt at whatever rate is fixed by statutory instrument as the appropriate rate of interest for judgment debts to carry. Whether that statutory rate is (at the moment) higher or lower than commercial rates of interest cannot be a relevant consideration.” 4. that the decision of the House of Lords in Hunt did not prevent interest from running from the date upon which that payable amount is assessed, the allocator rule, although he did observe that such an approach had not been adopted in any of the cases considered; 5. “…in terms of what justice requires, I do not think it just to make an order under which interest begins to run at the rate appropriate for unpaid judgment debts before the paying party could reasonably be expected to pay the debt; and, in a case where the court has ordered a suitable interim payment to be made on account of costs, I do not think it reasonable to expect the party liable for costs to pay the balance of the debt until it knows exactly what sums are being claimed by the party awarded costs and has had a fair opportunity to decide what sums it accepts are properly payable…” as to do otherwise would have led to unfairness, especially in “…cases where a particularly large amount of costs is likely to be outstanding for a particularly long period…”; and 6. “…I think it desirable to set a date from which Judgments Act interest will run which is based, if possible, on some objective benchmark and does not depend simply on the judge’s general feeling of what length of postponement is fair…It will do no favours to litigants – particularly as the amount of money at stake, while not negligible, is never likely to be large – if the date from which Judgments Act interest will be ordered to run is unpredictable, thus encouraging argument on the issue in every case…” Thus Mr Justice Leggatt concluded that “…a reasonable objective benchmark to take is the period prescribed by the rules of court for commencing detailed assessment proceedings…” namely 3 months from the date of the entitlement to costs under CPR 47.7. This judgment presents an interesting new position as to the application of interest. At first blush, it appears to suggest that interest on costs should only run from the expiry of the period for commencing Detailed Assessment, thus in every case it will only be able to be recovered from 3 months after the entitlement arises. Indeed it is expected that many paying parties may adopt such an approach as their position. However, when read in the context of the judgement as a whole, it is clear that such a position is intended only to be a desirable default as there is clear reference within the judgement to the injustice of a paying party being liable for interest during a period when they may not know the amount of the substantive costs which they are expected to indemnify, especially where there may be a delay in serving the Bill. Thus, for receiving parties, it will be imperative, if they are to recover interest from the earliest possible point, to ensure that there are no unreasonable delays in presenting any Bill of Costs to the paying party. In practice, disputes about interest frequently arise within paying party costs disputes , where assessment strategy can significantly affect both the principle sum and any interest allowed. Issues concerning interest on costs frequently arise alongside wider disputes about assessment, timing, and recoverability. In many cases, specialist costs advice is required to ensure interest arguments are advanced consistently with the underlying costs strategy. Our role as Costs Lawyers and Law Costs Draftsmen, including advising on interest and assessment issues, is explained further on our Costs Lawyers and Law Costs Draftsmen in England & Wales . These issues frequently arise within wider paying party costs disputes, where careful analysis of the bill and strategic challenges can significantly reduce overall liability 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

**Editorial note:** This case note discusses costs disallowance for misconduct. For a broader view of litigation costs recoverability, detailed assessment consequences, and costs risk, see our guide to specialist costs lawyers and law costs draftsmen . There have, in the past, been occasions where allegations have been made that a receiving party has incorrectly or even inappropriately included work in between the parties costs claims, such allegations being most normally vented within correspondence or in Points of Dispute. Often such are innocent oversights and are conceded in fairly short order once brought to the attention of the receiving party, but very occasionally the Court’s intervention (and subsequent adjudication) is required to resolve the issue. Very rarely is such a matter the subject of a reported or published decision, nor often are such decisions handed down at much more than first instance. A prime example of this rare animal was the widely circulated decision of District Judge Deurden, sitting as a Regional Costs Judge in the County Court at Bury, in the matter of Ramsay v InStore Plc (Bury County Court 29 April 2008), in which the claimant’s solicitors had served five grossly inflated costs schedules marked “without prejudice”, only to significantly reduce their costs claims when formal bills were served. The Regional Costs Judge ordered, at a preliminary hearing, that the ‘without prejudice’ protection normally afforded to schedules be removed so that they could be used as evidence. As a result, the claimant’s solicitors withdrew all five bills and agreed to pay the defendant’s costs in full. More recently, in the matter of Penny v ABV Systems, the claimant’s solicitors served a costs schedule of over £52,000, the same being considered excessive in the opinion of the paying party in comparison to the substantive matter, and an offer of just £16,886.00 was made. This was not agreeable to the receiving party, who issued Part 8 proceedings and thereafter served a formal Bill of Costs. Within the assessment process, the claimant’s solicitors failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the difference between the schedule which had been served, containing elements of duplication between the Grade B conducting fee earner and the Grade A supervising partner, as a result of which the paying party sought Counsel’s advice as to whether to take the matter to an assessment hearing. The schedule of costs (as in the matter of Ramsay) did not contain a statement of truth and Counsel’s opinion considered the paying party’s offer would likely be bettered at any assessment, therefore the decision was taken that the matter should proceed with the offer being maintained. The matter did not, however, reach a hearing, as the receiving party accepted the paying party’s offer and paid their costs. More recently still, the legal press have widely reported the demise of Asons who agreed to pay AXA Insurance £113,000.00 (comprising £70,000 plus interest and approximately £40,000 in legal costs) to settle disputed costs after admitting that it ‘falsely and systematically’ exaggerated its claim for costs in 65 personal injury cases. These examples, it should be stressed and as noted at the outset, are by far the exception rather than the rule, and are extremely rare, with the overwhelming majority of firms submitting entirely forthright and justifiable claims for costs. It is therefore almost entirely unknown for such matters to come before the Court of Appeal, and to do so truly represents an extraordinary scenario. The matter of GSD Law Ltd v Wardman & Others [2017] EWCA 2144 originated in the County Court at Leeds, before District Judge Neaves, and involved 14 personal injury claims in respect of which GSD were on the record for the claimants in 9 and acted as agents for Sovereign Solicitors in respect of the remaining 5, with the work being undertaken in all matters under CFAs. Upon successful completion of the substantive claims, informal schedules of costs were served on behalf of all 14 receiving parties, and these proving incapable of agreement, formal Bills of Costs were prepared and served under Notices of Commencement. The paying party then served Points of Dispute to all 14 matters, however such contained the rather unusual title “Particulars of Allegations” and specifically alleged fraud and misconduct against the claimants and put them on notice that the paying parties intended to argue that it had: “…caused the receiving parties [i.e. the claimants in the substantive proceedings] to be guilty of (gross) misconduct within the meaning of CPR rule 44.14 [now, CPR 44.11] and … as such they should both be denied their costs and they should pay the costs of the assessment” further alleging “…a systematic attempt by GSD to claim more in without prejudice schedules than is properly claimable…“, which if successful would lead the claimants to be personally enriched; that they had “…claimed hourly rates which were higher than those that were properly and honestly claimable…“; “…attempted to mislead the paying parties as to the status of the persons who carried out the work…“; “…claimed profit costs for work that was not done…“; “…claimed additional liabilities which were either not payable at all or which were less than the amounts claimed…“; and to have “…claimed a ‘drafting fee’ that did not exist…“ all of which gave rise to some very serious allegations requiring to be answered by the claimants. On 16 November 2012, District Judge Bedford, Regional Costs Judge gave directions for all 14 of the detailed assessments to be case-managed together, and for the parties to choose two sample cases that were “…indicative of the issues raised in the other cases…” and for the remaining matters to be stayed. It was also ordered that there be a hearing for certain preliminary issues such as “…the relevant jurisdictions that are open to the Court on the facts of this case, and in particular, whether the Court is able to reduce or limit the sums claimed on the grounds of misconduct or fraud, and if so, under which powers the Court may do so…”. The claimants served a “Reply to Allegations” on 21 December 2012, responding to the specific allegations as well as containing more general denials and, by that stage, two cases had also been selected. On 7 & 8 May 2014, the preliminary issues came before District Judge Neaves, Regional Costs Judge, with Sovereign Solicitors applying for, and being granted, permission to discontinue the detailed assessment proceedings in respect of the five cases in which they had acted. Oral evidence was heard across the two days, however the total required testimony of the witnesses could not be completed by the close of the second day. As a result of this, and the need to reconvene at a later date District Judge Neaves suggested “I am just throwing this open as a suggestion but it would deal with the matter if in between now and that adjourned hearing, Mr Friston, if you were to effectively draft something akin to an indictment? That is perhaps not entirely the appropriate word but I do think we need that level of specificity because I am clearly going to be invited to make specific findings on all of these cases and I need to be very clear as to what those findings are. The witness needs to be equally clear as to what exactly is being put to her in each of those cases.” and on 19 June 2014, the paying parties served their further document headed “‘Indictment-Style’ List of Allegations of Fraud and Misconduct” seeking to add one new allegation as follows “On 17 January 2014 GSD, instructed their agents, Blacks LLP, to make a complaint to the Costs Lawyer Standards Board about the Defendants’ costs lawyer (Mr Williams); that complaint was made in the context of the whole of this litigation, including the test cases. That complaint was a blatant attempt to discredit Mr Williams for the purposes of getting the upper hand in this litigation. GSD’s principal has confirmed under cross-examination that the allegations contained within it were false and that she knew that they were false. This was (gross and serious) misconduct within the meaning of CPR rule 44.11(1)(b).” GSD served a “Reply to Allegations” on 18 July 2014 which, inter alia, stated “The ‘hourly rate’ point is answered by reference to the retainers. These are attached hereto.” enclosing an attachment which, on the face of it, appeared to be a signed conditional fee agreement (“CFA”) which referred to an hourly charging rate of £203. This aspect of the charging rate was one specifically addressed in some detail by way of example, within the “Indictment-Style” list of allegations, noting “In the Schedule, GSD claimed an hourly rate of £203 per hour, this being a false representation of what was reasonably claimable. This was for one or both of the following reasons: (i) it was a rate that exceeded the rate set out in Mr Ismail’s fee agreement, and (ii) it was a rate that was grossly excessive given the fact that much of the work was carried out by a junior fee earner.” and the rate of £203 per hour was consistent with the sample “Ismail” CFA attached to the “Reply to Allegations” (which District Judge Neaves termed “CFA 1”) so, on the face of it, it appeared that there was a reasonable response to an otherwise serious allegation. The hearing resumed on 8 September 2014, oral evidence was completed with, during the course of the same, Ms Madhas being asked to produce the original of CFA 1, however she produced 2 sheets of paper which unlike CFA ,1, contained no handwritten date and gave an hourly rate of £180, causing the District Judge to conclude that this could not be the original of CFA 1. Equally, a third document found in a trial bundle that also purported to be the CFA for Mr Ismail and which the District Judge called “CFA 3”, recorded that it also referred to an hourly rate of £180 and, the District Judge observed “…[t]he ‘6’ of the handwritten date on CFA 3 does not appear to match the ‘6’ that can be made out on CFA 1…”. Following completion of the oral evidence, directions were given for both parties to give closing submissions in writing in which, the claimant accepted that there had been “…unreasonable conduct in the two sample files…” but that “…GSD/Ms Madhas’ is a case of ‘carelessness’ as to her administrative duties through inadvertence…” and therefore the Court should allow the costs in the sample files subject to assessment, following which District Judge Neaves handed down his written judgment at a hearing on 15 December 2014. Within that judgement, he found that Ms Madhas (on the topic of CFA 1) “…accepted that CFA 1 was a forgery. She was unable to explain how that forged document came to be appended to the reply, although earlier during the hearing she had suggested that her administrative team had copied and sent over documents. To the extent that that is tendered as an explanation, I do not accept it. It is inconceivable that a solicitor, facing such serious allegations, would delegate to others the task of ensuring that the correct documents were before the courts.” was “…a wholly unreliable witness…” with her evidence “…not only evasive and inconsistent, but dishonest…”, further finding that all the allegations made against GSD to have been proved, and that the extent of the conduct and dishonesty of GSD was at the most serious end of the scale, concluding “The conduct of the receiving party’s solicitor is sufficiently egregious as to make the only appropriate sanction the disallowance of all costs on the sample files. The receiving party will also pay the costs of the assessment proceedings including the preliminary issues.” The claimants applied for permission to appeal to the District Judge who, in granting permission, noted that there was a “…dearth of authority to guide the court in the manner as to which CPR 44.11 procedures should be conducted when serious allegations of dishonesty are made against a receiving party…”. Upon the appeal, 5 grounds of appeal were put forward, inter alia, that the District Judge had “…purported to use the CPR 44.11 powers in a manner which was entirely inconsistent with their purpose to be an ancillary jurisdiction intended to be summary in nature and which does not require the consideration of detailed allegations of alleged dishonest conduct…” and, further, that the procedure that the District Judge had adopted was unfair. The appeal was dismissed by HHJ Gosnell in a written judgment on 8 July 2015, finding that, in respect of the allegation that the procedure had been unfair, that they had not and that the claimants “…had more than adequate notice of the allegations against them and were given a full opportunity to respond to them…“, that in respect of the certifications to the bills that it was apparent that it “…appeared on both the costs schedule and Bill of costs of [GSD] and the indemnity principle had in both documents been breached as found by the Judge below and conceded by counsel on behalf of [GSD]…” and that “In my view it was incumbent on the Judge to investigate factually whether these numerous alleged breaches of the indemnity principle and the consequent signing of misleading certificates were part of a habitual or systemic scheme to obtain unreasonable amounts of costs or were mere coincidences caused by genuine errors. The signing of a certificate on the bill of costs certifying its accuracy is very important. If paying parties lost confidence in the bona fides of solicitors signing these certificates the consequences for civil litigation as a whole would be significant. Paying parties would be reluctant to negotiate informal settlement of costs and would insist on a Bill being served and they would then insist on seeing the document which evidences the retainer to ensure the indemnity principle had not been breached. This was the very evil which Bailey v IBC Vehicles was intended to address. The allegations made in this case were serious and went to the heart of the detailed assessment process. Many of the documents which had to be examined would have been examined as part of the detailed assessment process anyway (in particular the documents evidencing the retainer). In my view it would have been an abdication of the court’s duty not to investigate these allegations.” and further concluding in respect of the CPR 44.11 point “The alleged misconduct in this case goes to the very heart of the detailed assessment process and examination of some of the issues would be called for on a detailed assessment in any event. The Court has an important role in maintaining professional standards and ensuring that parties behave fairly and honestly towards each other in the litigation process. In my judgment the Judge below was right to investigate this conduct under the summary procedure envisaged by CPR 44.11 and certainly cannot be said to be out with the wide discretion open to him when deciding how to deal with this issue.” referring to Bailey v IBC Vehicles Ltd [1998] 3 All ER 570, in which Henry LJ, at 575-576, observed “RSC Ord 62, r 29(7)(c)(iii) requires the solicitor who brings proceedings for taxation to sign the bill of costs. In so signing he certifies that the contents of the bill are correct. That signature is no empty formality. The bill specifies the hourly rates applied, and the care and attention uplift claimed. If an agreement between the receiving solicitor and his client (here the trade union) restricted (say) the hourly rate payable by the client, that hourly rate is the most that can be claimed or recovered on taxation (see General of Berne Insurance Co v Jardine Reinsurance Management Ltd [1998] 2 All ER 301). The signature of the bill of costs under the rules is effectively the certificate by an officer of the court that the receiving party’s solicitors are not seeking to recover in relation to any item more than they have agreed to charge their client under a contentious business agreement. The court can (and should unless there is evidence to the contrary) assume that his signature to the bill of costs shows that the indemnity principle has not been offended…. … And the other side of a presumption of trust afforded to the signature of an officer of the court must be that breach of that trust should be treated as a most serious disciplinary offence.” Dissatisfied with the judgment of HHJ Gosnall, the claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal, raising two issues (as per [25]) Should District Judge Neaves have declined to entertain the allegations against GSD because CPR 44.11 is a summary jurisdiction, akin to that regarding wasted costs? [“The Summary Jurisdiction Issue”] Was the procedure that was adopted unfair? [“The Unfair Procedure Issue”] which issues were dealt with in order by the court in its judgment, published on 15 December 2017. Giving judgment Newey LJ noted, in respect of “The Summary Jurisdiction Issue”, that (at [39]) “…it was right to entertain the application under CPR 44.11. The paying parties were contending that costs “which [were] being assessed” should be disallowed because of “unreasonable or improper” conduct in connection with the assessment of costs; the allegations could be addressed in the context of pending assessment proceedings; certain of the allegations (in particular, those relating to the bills of costs) would fall to be addressed anyway in those proceedings; there is no suggestion that legal professional privilege presented any difficulty; and the complaints made by the paying parties did not call for any inquiry into the merits of the substantive claims. It is also relevant that, as can be seen from what was said in Bailey v IBC Vehicles Ltd (for which, see paragraph 24 above), there is a strong public interest in ensuring that solicitors do not certify costs figures dishonestly: as Judge Gosnell noted, there would be unfortunate consequences if paying parties “lost confidence in the bona fides of solicitors signing these certificates”. Having regard both to seriousness of the allegations and to the sums potentially at stake, I do not think it was disproportionate to have a three-day hearing. I cannot see, moreover, how ordinary civil proceedings for fraudulent misrepresentation could have provided a satisfactory alternative to an application pursuant to CPR 44.11. In the first place, such a claim could itself fairly have been described as “satellite litigation”. Secondly, the power to disallow costs which it has been thought appropriate to confer on the Court by CPR 44.11 would not have been available, with the result, presumably, that loss could have been established only if and to the extent that the paying parties could have shown that costs were assessed at too high a figure as a result of deceit on the part of GSD; it would not appear to have been open to them to contend that costs should have been disallowed in their entirety. Thirdly, it is by no means clear to me that it would have been proper for the paying parties to seek to impugn the figures held to be due in the assessment proceedings: that might be thought to have involved an illegitimate attack on a previous Court determination (compare e.g. Phipson on Evidence, 18th ed., at paragraph 43-23, and Tibbs v Islington BC [2002] EWCA Civ 1682, at paragraphs 8, 15, 17-19, 21 and 22). ” and accordingly that aspect of the appeal was dismissed. Furthermore, in respect of “The Unfair Procedure Issue”, Newey LJ opined (at [44]) that “For my part, however, I agree with Judge Gosnell that the procedure was fair. Among other things: District Judge Bedford’s order of 16 November 2012 allowed GSD to join itself as a party whenever it wished. In the event, it elected to do so in September 2013, but it was evidently in the driving seat on the costs issues well before this. As mentioned in paragraph 8 above, the commercial interest always rested with GSD; The “Particulars of Allegations” served in November 2012 gave GSD and Ms Madhas sufficient notice of the case they had to meet at the hearing on 7 and 8 May 2014 and, in particular, the allegations of dishonesty. I am not entirely sure why District Judge Neaves proposed the “Indictment-Style” list of allegations (possibly, as Mr Smith suggested, to effect a “clearing of the decks”), but it in fact added little of substance to the “Particulars of Allegations”; and The “bombshell” arose from GSD choosing to attach to its “Reply to Allegations” of 18 July 2014 a document that proved to be a forgery. The paying parties cannot be criticised for their failure to refer to this in their “Particulars of Allegations” or “Indictment-Style” list of allegations since these pre-dated the “Reply to Allegations” and the forged document had not yet featured in the case. It is also significant that GSD did not suggest at the hearing on 8 September 2014 that it needed an adjournment to deal with the document.” and thus the appeal as a whole was unanimously dismissed, with Hamblen and Longmore LLJ concurring. The judgment handed down is striking by its findings. However, such issues are, in the writer’s experience, absolutely the exception within a profession which is dedicated to the very highest standards of integrity. It also, once again and in stark relief, demonstrates the necessity for straightforward and transparent billing practices. Allegations of misconduct frequently arise in detailed assessment disputes between paying and receiving parties. 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

Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) transfers arise where a claimant changes legal representation and the CFA is assigned or replaced. While the procedural mechanics are familiar, the costs consequences are often underestimated. CFA transfers sit at the intersection of procedure, conduct, and recoverability , and they frequently become issues at detailed assessment . What Is a CFA Transfer? A CFA transfer typically occurs when: a claimant moves from one firm to another an existing CFA is assigned a new CFA replaces the original responsibility for work done under the first retainer shifts From a procedural standpoint, this involves: notice of change of solicitor review of retainer documentation clarity on client authority allocation of costs between firms While the paperwork may appear straightforward, the recoverability implications can be complex. Why CFA Transfers Create Costs Risk Costs disputes often arise because CFA transfers raise questions about: whether work under the original retainer is recoverable whether authority for the transfer was properly obtained duplication of work between firms reasonableness of costs incurred during transition whether the transfer increased overall costs unnecessarily Paying parties frequently examine CFA transitions closely because they can significantly affect exposure. Recoverability Issues at Detailed Assessment At detailed assessment , the court may consider: whether the retainer arrangements were valid whether the CFA transfer was properly documented whether both firms’ work was necessary whether duplication occurred whether the transfer led to avoidable cost increases This turns a procedural event into a conduct and recoverability question. How Paying Parties Challenge Costs After a CFA Transfer Effective challenges often focus on: 🔹 Duplication of Work Paying parties may argue that new solicitors repeated work already completed, leading to unnecessary cost. 🔹 Authority and Retainer Issues If documentation is unclear or incomplete, arguments may be made that some costs were not properly authorised. 🔹 Transition Inefficiency Where a change of representation increases time spent reviewing files, preparing again, or re-doing steps, paying parties argue this was avoidable. 🔹 Proportionality Even where work was done, the court may consider whether the costs remain proportionate in light of the transfer. Conduct and Reasonableness CFA transfers are not automatically problematic. Courts recognise that clients may legitimately change solicitors. The key questions become: Was the change reasonable? Was the transfer managed efficiently? Were costs kept under control during transition? Poor handling of the transfer can create arguments that would not otherwise exist. Common Mistakes That Increase Dispute Risk Problems often arise where: retainer documentation is incomplete no clear record of authority exists file handover is inefficient both firms bill for similar review work there is no explanation for transition time These gaps give paying parties scope to challenge recoverability. Strategic Implications Understanding CFA transfer risks helps with: exposure modelling preparing evidence for assessment avoiding duplication challenges managing proportionality arguments anticipating paying party positions Procedural steps during transfer can have lasting consequences at assessment. Key Takeaways CFA transfers are procedural events with recoverability implications Duplication and authority issues often drive disputes Paying parties scrutinise transitions closely Efficiency and documentation are critical The issue frequently arises at detailed assessment 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

Costs budgeting remains one of the most important, and often misunderstood, aspects of modern litigation. Even experienced solicitors can encounter difficulties where budgets are prepared without specialist costs input or are not kept under review as proceedings develop. At SPH Costing Services, we regularly assist solicitors where avoidable budgeting issues have limited recovery or caused unnecessary disputes. Below, we set out the most common costs budgeting mistakes — and explain how we can help prevent them. Under-Estimating Future Phases A frequent issue we see is under-estimation of later phases such as disclosure, witness evidence and trial preparation. Where figures are too low, firms can find themselves undertaking substantial work that is not, or only partially, recoverable. How we help: We work closely with solicitors at the outset of proceedings to prepare realistic, defensible budgets. By drawing on experience of how costs are scrutinised at both budgeting hearings and detailed assessment, we help ensure that future phases properly reflect the likely work involved. Weak or Generic Budget Assumptions Budget assumptions are often overlooked, yet they are critical in explaining why costs are reasonable and proportionate. Generic or poorly drafted assumptions are more vulnerable to challenge and may limit recovery later on. How we help: SPH Costing Services prepares clear, case-specific assumptions that link directly to the pleaded issues and litigation strategy. This strengthens the budget at approval stage and provides essential context if costs are later assessed. Treating Costs Budgeting as a Box-Ticking Exercise Costs budgeting should support the way a case is run, not restrict it. We often see budgets prepared under time pressure or without proper costs input, which can cause difficulties as the case progresses. How we help: By becoming involved early, we ensure that the costs budget aligns with the solicitor’s strategy for conducting the litigation. Our role is to support the efficient prosecution or defence of the claim, while protecting recoverable costs. Failure to Monitor and Update the Budget Even the most carefully prepared budget can become outdated if circumstances change. Amendments to pleadings, unforeseen interlocutory applications or changes in scope can all justify a revision. How we help: We provide ongoing advice throughout the life of the case, including reviewing spend against budget and advising on whether a variation application is appropriate. This helps solicitors address issues proactively, rather than at the point of assessment. Recoverability of Costs Budgeting Costs on Detailed Assessment Where a costs management order has been made, the treatment of costs budgeting costs on detailed assessment requires careful alignment between the approved Precedent H and the bill of costs. The assumptions within the approved budget are the starting point. Costs included within the CMC or PTR phases of the Precedent H should appear in the corresponding phases of the bill. This avoids disputes as to whether those costs are: subject to the phase budget subject to the 1% or 2% caps on budgeting costs or both Separating budgeting costs into phase and non-phase sections without reference to the approved assumptions frequently leads to unnecessary argument and potential disallowance. For paying parties , this creates opportunities to: challenge budgeting costs that exceed the approved phase totals without good reason enforce the 1% and 2% caps where costs are claimed outside the budgeted phases scrutinise whether time claimed as case management work is in fact budgeting work Clear phase alignment between Precedent H and the bill remains the most effective way to minimise disputes and ensure proper application of the caps. Leaving Costs Advice Too Late Costs specialists are often instructed only when recovery is challenged, or when a budget has already become unrealistic. At that stage, options can be limited. How we help: Early instruction allows us to identify potential issues before they impact recovery. Whether at pre-action stage, costs budgeting or later review, timely costs input can make a significant difference to the outcome. Why Instruct SPH Costing Services? SPH Costing Services provides practical, commercially focused costs advice at all stages of litigation. Our involvement can: Improve the accuracy and credibility of costs budgets Support stronger budget approval outcomes Reduce the risk of unrecoverable work Assist with ongoing budget management and variation Maximise recovery at detailed assessment We work as an extension of the solicitor’s team, offering clear and pragmatic advice tailored to each case. Conclusion Costs budgeting is not simply a procedural requirement — it is a key part of effective litigation management. Involving a costs draftsman early and throughout proceedings can help solicitors avoid common pitfalls and protect recoverable costs. If you would like to discuss how SPH Costing Services can assist with costs budgeting or ongoing costs management, we are happy to provide initial guidance. Frequently Asked Questions About Instructing SPH Costing Services When should we instruct SPH Costing Services in relation to costs budgeting? Ideally, we should be instructed at the earliest opportunity, including at pre-action stage or when preparing the initial costs budget. Early involvement allows potential issues to be identified and addressed before they affect recovery. Can SPH assist if a costs budget has already been approved? Yes. We regularly advise on ongoing budget management, monitoring spend against budget and advising on whether a variation may be appropriate following changes in scope or circumstances. Do you only assist with preparing costs budgets? No. In addition to costs budgeting, we assist with drafting Bills of Costs, costs negotiations, detailed assessments, Legal Aid costs and Court of Protection matters. We can support solicitors at any stage of the costs process. We also support our local and police Authority Clients. How do you work with solicitors during the case? We work as an extension of the solicitor’s team, providing practical and responsive advice tailored to the needs of the case. Our aim is to support effective case management while protecting recoverable costs. Is a costs draftsperson cost-effective for budgeting work? Yes. Early costs input often results in higher recovery and fewer disputes later on. Our involvement at the budgeting stage can help avoid unrecoverable work and costly problems at assessment 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

Even where litigation work has been properly carried out, recovery of costs is never guaranteed. On detailed assessment, the court does not simply ask whether work was done, it considers how  the litigation was conducted, who  carried out the work, whether the work was proportionate, and whether it was properly authorised and supervised. Reductions often arise not because the work was unnecessary, but because the way the costs are structured, evidenced, or presented creates avoidable assessment risk. Costs recovery ultimately depends on how litigation was conducted and how litigation costs are prepared and presented for assessment . Conduct and the Risk of Reduction on Assessment The conduct of the litigation is a central factor in assessment. Paying parties frequently argue that the receiving party’s approach led to unnecessary or disproportionate costs, even where the work itself was procedurally valid. Common Conduct-Related Issues Typical arguments include: Over-lawyering routine issues Pursuing marginal or low-value points Duplication of attendance Excessive internal communications Failure to narrow issues Unnecessary interim applications Even where such work had a rationale at the time, the court may take a retrospective view when assessing proportionality. Delegation, Fee Earner Grade and Supervision Who performs the work can be as important as the work itself. Assessment often involves scrutiny of who carried out the work and whether it was appropriate for that individual. Assessment judges often scrutinise: Whether tasks were delegated at an appropriate level The balance between senior input and junior time The level of supervision evidenced Instances where high-grade fee earners carried out administrative or routine tasks Inadequate delegation or unclear supervision can lead to reductions even where the work was otherwise reasonable. The assessment process is structured and evidence-driven rather than informal, reflecting how specialist costs are assessed in practice . Authorisation, Role Allocation and Recoverability Certain categories of work attract particular scrutiny, especially where: Multiple fee earners attend conferences or hearings Counsel and solicitors appear to duplicate roles Internal conferences or strategy meetings are frequent Time is recorded without clear purpose or outcome Assessment outcomes often turn on whether the structure of the legal team and the division of work can be justified. Work carried out outside the regulatory framework governing recoverable costs  creates significant risk at assessment. Costs disputes often arise where proceedings are discontinued and re-issued, as demonstrated in a recent defended assessment involving pre-issue cost recovery. Presentation Risk: Why Bills Fail Even Where Work Was Proper A significant proportion of reductions arise from presentation rather than substance. Common issues include: Narrative descriptions that do not demonstrate purpose Block billing that obscures proportionality Failure to link work to issues or stages of litigation Inadequate evidence of complexity or importance Poor structuring of the bill The court must be able to understand why  the work was done and why  it was reasonable in the context of the case. Why Specialist Costs Input Reduces Risk Because detailed assessment is governed by procedural rules and judicial guidance rather than local practice, specialist costs professionals are often instructed to: Structure bills to align with assessment principles Present work in a way that evidences proportionality Anticipate common paying party challenges Reduce exposure to conduct-based arguments Support negotiation and assessment proceedings Early input frequently reduces both recoverability risk and the likelihood of protracted disputes. Summary Costs are not disallowed only because work was unnecessary. Reductions often arise from conduct, delegation, authorisation, proportionality, and presentation issues. Understanding how these factors influence assessment outcomes is essential for any party seeking to recover litigation costs effectively. 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 Difference Between Standard and Indemnity Basis Indemnity costs are not simply “higher” costs. They alter the approach the court takes to assessment. Under the standard basis, costs must be both reasonably incurred and proportionate. Under the indemnity basis, proportionality falls away and doubt is resolved in favour of the receiving party. This shift can materially affect the outcome of a detailed assessment. or a practical guide to how detailed assessment proceedings  are conducted in practice, and how assessment strategy impacts recoverability outcomes, see our specialist costs support overview. When Do Courts Order Indemnity Costs? Indemnity costs are typically ordered where the court considers conduct to be “out of the norm”. This may include unreasonable litigation behaviour, refusal to engage in settlement, pursuing weak or exaggerated claims, or procedural misconduct. However, the threshold is not defined by rigid rules; it depends on judicial evaluation of the overall conduct of the litigation. Why Indemnity Costs Do Not Guarantee Full Recovery An indemnity costs order does not mean every item claimed will be allowed. Assessment still applies, and the court will still examine reasonableness. Excessive, duplicated or unnecessary work remains vulnerable. Indemnity basis shifts the margin of doubt — it does not remove scrutiny. The Role of Indemnity Costs in Between-the-Parties Disputes Indemnity costs arguments frequently arise in between-the-parties costs disputes , particularly where conduct, Part 36 consequences or litigation behaviour are raised as issues. These arguments can influence both negotiation strategy and the approach taken on detailed assessment. Indemnity Costs and Recoverability Risk Where conduct is criticised, arguments may extend beyond basis of assessment to questions of recoverability , delegation and proportionality. Indemnity costs disputes often intersect with wider issues about how litigation was conducted and how work is justified in the bill. Why Indemnity Costs Are a Strategic Issue For litigators, indemnity costs are often seen as a remedy. For costs professionals, they are a strategic variable that can alter risk exposure, negotiation leverage and the likely outcome of assessment proceedings. Understanding how the court applies the indemnity test in practice is therefore critical. Because indemnity costs disputes sit within the broader framework of assessment strategy and recoverability risk, they are typically addressed by specialist costs lawyers  with experience of detailed assessment proceedings. 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