In detailed assessment proceedings, one of the most common disputes concerns solicitor hourly charging rates. Paying parties frequently challenge whether the rates claimed are reasonable and proportionate, particularly in substantial litigation where costs can escalate quickly. Although the courts regularly refer to the Guideline Hourly Rates (GHR), those figures are not fixed caps. Instead, they act as a starting point when assessing whether the time costs claimed in a Bill of Costs are recoverable. Understanding how the courts approach hourly rates is essential for solicitors, insurers, local authorities and litigants involved in costs disputes. What Are Guideline Hourly Rates? Guideline Hourly Rates are indicative figures published to assist judges during detailed assessment proceedings. They provide benchmark hourly charging rates for fee earners based upon: Geographic location Seniority of the fee earner Complexity of the litigation Nature of the work undertaken The rates are commonly divided into grades: Grade A Solicitors and legal executives with over 8 years’ experience. Grade B Solicitors and legal executives with over 4 years’ experience. Grade C Other qualified solicitors and fee earners. Grade D Trainees and paralegals. The court will often begin by considering whether the claimed hourly rates significantly exceed the applicable guideline figures. Are Guideline Hourly Rates Binding? No. Guideline rates are not mandatory. The courts repeatedly confirm that they are guidance only. A receiving party may recover rates above the guideline figures where justified by factors such as: Complexity of the case Urgency Specialist expertise Reputation and experience Value of the dispute Geographic market conditions However, simply asserting that a matter was “complex” will rarely be sufficient without proper evidence. When Courts Reduce Hourly Rates Hourly rate reductions are frequently made during detailed assessment proceedings. Common reasons include: Excessive Partner Involvement The court may conclude that work undertaken by Grade A fee earners could reasonably have been delegated to more junior staff at lower rates. Routine Litigation Where litigation is relatively straightforward, judges may refuse premium London or specialist rates. Duplication of Work If multiple fee earners attend the same hearings, conferences or drafting exercises unnecessarily, reductions often follow. Poor Costs Management Where the work appears inefficient or disproportionate to the issues in dispute, hourly rate reductions may accompany wider proportionality findings. The Importance of Evidence Receiving parties seeking rates above guideline figures should provide proper justification. Useful supporting evidence may include: Details of specialist expertise Complexity of the litigation Comparable market rates Urgent or expedited work Importance of the matter to the client Without evidence, judges may default to guideline figures or apply broad reductions. Proportionality and Hourly Rates Even where hourly rates are technically reasonable, the court must still consider proportionality under CPR 44.3. This means that recoverable costs may still be reduced if they are disproportionate to: The value of the claim The importance of the litigation The complexity of the issues The conduct of the parties As a result, disputes regarding hourly rates are often closely linked to broader proportionality arguments. Common Paying Party Arguments Paying parties frequently challenge hourly rates by arguing: The rates exceed local market norms The litigation did not justify specialist charging levels Excessive senior fee earner involvement occurred Work was administrative rather than legal The matter could have been conducted more efficiently These arguments often form a substantial part of Points of Dispute in detailed assessment proceedings. How Specialist Costs Lawyers Can Help Hourly rate disputes can significantly affect recoverable costs. Specialist Costs Lawyers can assist with: Drafting Points of Dispute Preparing Replies Negotiating reductions Preparing Bills of Costs Advising on proportionality strategy Conducting detailed assessment proceedings Early strategic input often leads to better costs recovery outcomes and more effective negotiations. Conclusion Guideline Hourly Rates remain one of the most heavily contested aspects of detailed assessment proceedings. While the guidelines are not strict limits, parties seeking rates above them must provide proper justification supported by evidence and proportionality arguments. Whether acting for receiving or paying parties, careful preparation and specialist costs advice can materially affect the outcome of a detailed assessment. Related Costs Recovery Problems Paying parties frequently encounter challenges involving Bills of Costs, Points of Dispute, detailed assessment proceedings and costs exposure. For additional practical guidance on common costs issues, visit our Common Costs Problems resource centre: https://www.sphcosts.com/common-costs-problems Internal Links Detailed Assessment Services: https://www.sphcosts.com/detailed-assessment Points of Dispute Services: https://www.sphcosts.com/points-of-dispute Costs Draftsman Services: https://www.sphcosts.com/services

Replies to Points of Dispute are an important part of detailed assessment proceedings under CPR Part 47. After the paying party serves Points of Dispute challenging a bill of costs, the receiving party may respond with Replies explaining why the costs claimed should be allowed. In practice, Replies frequently address issues including: proportionality hourly rates fee earner delegation duplication allegations conduct arguments recoverability disputes Well-drafted Replies can significantly improve a receiving party’s negotiating position and influence the outcome of provisional or oral detailed assessment. For guidance on Points of Dispute see: https://www.sphcosts.com/draft-points-of-dispute What Are Replies to Points of Dispute? Replies to Points of Dispute are the receiving party’s formal response to the paying party’s objections to a bill of costs. The purpose of Replies is to: explain why the costs claimed are reasonable justify work challenged by the paying party address allegations of duplication or excess provide context for the litigation narrow the issues in dispute Replies frequently play a significant role in negotiations between the parties before any detailed assessment hearing takes place. Are Replies Mandatory? Unlike Points of Dispute, Replies are not mandatory under CPR Part 47. However, in practice, Replies are often highly important where: substantial reductions are sought proportionality is disputed technical challenges are raised hourly rates are attacked complex litigation is involved Failure to serve Replies may weaken the receiving party’s position during negotiations or assessment proceedings. For broader guidance on detailed assessment see:https://www.sphcosts.com/post/detailed-assessment-of-costs-guide Common Issues Addressed in Replies Replies to Points of Dispute frequently respond to recurring paying party challenges. These commonly include: Hourly Rates Receiving parties often seek to justify rates above Guideline Hourly Rates by reference to: complexity urgency specialist expertise geographical location value of the litigation For guidance on hourly rates see: https://www.sphcosts.com/post/guideline-hourly-rates-2026 Delegation and Fee Earner Grade Replies may explain why senior fee earners were required to undertake particular work or supervise complex stages of the litigation. Arguments often address: complexity of issues tactical importance client expectations urgency continuity of conduct Proportionality Receiving parties frequently respond to proportionality challenges by highlighting: complexity of proceedings conduct generating additional work importance of the dispute volume of evidence procedural history For more on proportionality challenges see: https://www.sphcosts.com/post/proportionality-challenges-in-detailed-assessment Duplication Allegations Where paying parties allege duplication of attendance or preparation, Replies often explain: differing responsibilities of fee earners necessity of attendance complexity of hearings supervision requirements Replies in Provisional Assessment Many detailed assessments proceed by way of provisional assessment under CPR 47.15. In provisional assessment proceedings, the court generally considers: the bill of costs Points of Dispute Replies without oral submissions. As a result, the quality and clarity of Replies can materially influence the outcome. Well-structured Replies may improve: phase recovery hourly rate arguments proportionality outcomes resistance to global reductions For provisional assessment guidance see:https://www.sphcosts.com/post/cpr-47-15-provisional-assessment-75k-limit Strategic Importance of Replies Replies should do more than simply deny paying party objections. The strongest Replies: address the key reductions sought explain litigation context support proportionality arguments justify specialist involvement reinforce the reasonableness of the work undertaken Poorly drafted or generic Replies are significantly less persuasive. In many cases, effective Replies contribute directly to negotiated settlement before assessment. Replies and Settlement Negotiations The exchange of Points of Dispute and Replies frequently narrows the issues between the parties. Strong Replies can: reduce pressure for concessions justify disputed phases strengthen negotiation position support recovery of assessment costs Where the receiving party demonstrates that substantial parts of the bill are likely to survive challenge, settlement often becomes more likely. Specialist Drafting of Replies Complex or high-value bills of costs frequently require specialist drafting by experienced Costs Lawyers or law costs draftsmen. This is particularly important where disputes involve: high-value commercial litigation Court of Protection costs detailed proportionality disputes costs budgeting departures allegations of misconduct or over-lawyering For receiving party support see:https://www.sphcosts.com/receiving-party-bills-of-costs Relationship Between Replies and Assessment Costs The conduct of the parties during detailed assessment proceedings may affect recovery of the costs of assessment itself. Unreasonable or weak challenges by a paying party may strengthen arguments for recovery of assessment costs by the receiving party. Conversely, excessive or poorly supported Replies may attract criticism from the court. The quality of drafting on both sides therefore remains strategically important. Summary Replies to Points of Dispute are a key part of detailed assessment proceedings under CPR Part 47. They allow receiving parties to defend the reasonableness and proportionality of a bill of costs while responding strategically to paying party objections. Effective Replies frequently influence: negotiation outcomes provisional assessment decisions proportionality findings recovery of assessment costs For specialist assistance with Replies to Points of Dispute, bills of costs and detailed assessment proceedings, contact SPH Costs. Related Guides Draft Points of Dispute: https://www.sphcosts.com/draft-points-of-dispute Detailed Assessment of Costs Guide: https://www.sphcosts.com/post/detailed-assessment-of-costs-guide Guideline Hourly Rates 2026: https://www.sphcosts.com/post/guideline-hourly-rates-2026 Proportionality Challenges at Detailed Assessment https://www.sphcosts.com/post/proportionality-challenges-in-detailed-assessment Receiving Party Bills of Costs https://www.sphcosts.com/receiving-party-bills-of-costs

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)

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.

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) Common Costs Problems ​ Legal Aid costs recovery frequently involves issues such as CCMS claim rejections, prior authority concerns, payment delays, assessment reductions and LAA queries. For further practical guidance, visit our Common Costs Problems resource centre: https://www.sphcosts.com/common-costs-problems

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

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.