Search this site

An LAA query can be frustrating, particularly where a claim has already been submitted and payment is anticipated. Whilst some queries are routine, others can result in significant delay, additional work and uncertainty regarding recovery. Understanding why queries arise and responding effectively can often help reduce delay and improve the prospects of successful recovery. Why Does The LAA Raise Queries? Queries may arise at various stages of the assessment process. Common reasons include: insufficient supporting evidence unclear narratives coding concerns certificate discrepancies scope issues unusual expenditure escape fee eligibility questions In many cases, the work undertaken is not necessarily disputed. Instead, the assessor requires further information before reaching a decision. Common Types Of Query Clarification Of Work Undertaken Assessors may request additional information regarding: attendances preparation work correspondence conferences case complexity Clear explanations can often assist in resolving concerns quickly. Supporting Evidence Requests Queries frequently arise where: attendance notes are unclear supporting documents are missing expert evidence requires explanation expenditure appears unusual The stronger the supporting documentation, the easier it is generally to address concerns. Certificate And Scope Issues Funding certificates may evolve throughout the life of a matter. Queries often arise where: amendments are not reflected clearly scope appears inconsistent authorised work is unclear These issues can sometimes be identified before submission. Escape Fee Queries Escape fee claims frequently attract additional scrutiny. Assessors may seek clarification regarding: eligibility calculations supporting records complexity These queries often require careful review before responding. Why Prompt Responses Matter An unanswered query can delay assessment and payment. The consequences may include: delayed recovery increased administrative burden cashflow pressure further assessment concerns Prompt and well-supported responses often assist in progressing matters more efficiently. Common Mistakes Firms Make Responding Too Quickly Providing incomplete responses can generate further queries and additional delay. Failing To Review The Entire Claim Sometimes the issue identified by the assessor is only one part of a wider problem. Missing Supporting Material Important evidence may already exist within the file but not be included in the response. Treating Queries As Routine Certain queries can indicate wider recoverability concerns and may require strategic consideration. Can An LAA Query Lead To Reduction? Potentially, yes. Some queries are purely administrative. Others may relate directly to: recoverability scope eligibility reasonableness evidence How a query is addressed can sometimes influence the final assessment outcome. Practical Steps Following An LAA Query Where a query is received, firms should consider: reviewing the query carefully identifying the precise concern raised checking supporting records reviewing certificate history considering whether additional evidence is available ensuring responses are complete and consistent A structured response often assists in avoiding further delay. Managing Recovery Risk Many Legal Aid recovery issues begin with what appears to be a relatively minor query. Early identification of potential weaknesses can assist with: reducing delay improving recovery prospects avoiding repeated requests for clarification strengthening assessment outcomes A proactive approach is often more effective than responding only after difficulties develop. How SPH Costs Assists SPH Costs provides specialist support with: Legal Aid costs drafting CCMS claims LAA queries assessment issues reassessment proceedings escape fee claims recovery strategy We regularly assist Legal Aid firms in resolving complex recovery and assessment issues. Speak To A Legal Aid Costs Specialist If your firm has received: an LAA query a CCMS clarification request assessment queries recovery challenges delayed payment issues SPH Costs provides specialist Legal Aid costs support across England & Wales. 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 Links Legal Aid Costs Drafting: https://www.sphcosts.com/legally-aided-costs CCMS Claim Rejected: https://www.sphcosts.com/post/ccms-claim-rejected-what-happens-next Delayed Legal Aid Payments: https://www.sphcosts.com/post/delayed-legal-aid-payments-common-causes-and-practical-solutions Why Legal Aid Claims Are Reduced: https://www.sphcosts.com/post/why-legal-aid-claims-are-reduced Escape Fee Claim Rejected: https://www.sphcosts.com/post/escape-fee-claim-rejected-what-happens-next

Escape fee claims can represent a significant source of recovery for firms undertaking publicly funded work. When a claim is rejected or reduced, the financial consequences can be substantial. In addition to the immediate loss of recovery, firms may face further administrative work, delayed payment and uncertainty regarding future claims. Understanding why escape fee claims are challenged and what options may be available afterwards is often critical to protecting recovery. What Is An Escape Fee Claim? In certain circumstances, work carried out under a standard fee scheme may justify payment beyond the standard fixed fee. Where the relevant criteria are satisfied, a claim may qualify for escape fee treatment, allowing recovery to be assessed on a different basis. Whether a claim qualifies will depend upon the specific category of law, the applicable scheme and the work undertaken. Why Are Escape Fee Claims Rejected? Escape fee claims may be challenged for a variety of reasons. Common issues include: insufficient evidence of work undertaken calculation errors incorrect claim categorisation disputes regarding eligibility procedural issues supporting documentation concerns In many cases, the challenge focuses not on whether work was carried out, but whether the claim satisfies the relevant escape fee requirements. Common Problems We Encounter Insufficient Evidence Claims may be questioned where records do not adequately demonstrate the work undertaken. Clear attendance notes, time records and supporting documentation often play an important role. Calculation Issues Errors in calculations can lead to avoidable disputes. Even relatively minor mistakes may trigger further scrutiny. Scope and Eligibility Concerns Questions frequently arise regarding: whether the matter qualifies whether all work claimed falls within scope whether the relevant thresholds have been satisfied Supporting Documentation Claims may be delayed or challenged where supporting material is incomplete or inconsistent. Does Rejection Mean Recovery Is Lost? Not necessarily. A rejected escape fee claim does not automatically mean that all additional recovery is unavailable. The key questions often include: why the claim was challenged what evidence is available whether clarification can be provided whether review options exist Many disputes depend heavily upon the supporting material available. The Importance of Early Review Once concerns arise regarding an escape fee claim, early review is often beneficial. This may assist in: identifying evidential gaps reviewing calculations addressing likely assessment concerns improving presentation of the claim Early intervention frequently prevents issues from becoming more difficult to resolve later. Practical Steps Following Rejection Where an escape fee claim has been rejected or significantly reduced, firms should consider: reviewing assessment comments carefully checking calculations reviewing supporting records confirming eligibility requirements identifying any evidential deficiencies considering available review options Prompt action often places firms in a stronger position. Managing Legal Aid Recovery Effectively Escape fee disputes rarely occur in isolation. They often form part of wider Legal Aid recovery issues involving: claim presentation evidential support coding procedural compliance assessment strategy A structured approach to recovery frequently improves outcomes. How SPH Costs Assists SPH Costs provides specialist support with: Legal Aid costs drafting escape fee claims CCMS billing assessment queries reassessment proceedings recovery strategy We regularly assist Legal Aid firms in resolving complex recovery and assessment issues. Speak to a Legal Aid Costs Specialist If your firm is dealing with: a rejected escape fee claim assessment reductions delayed payment Legal Aid recovery concerns reassessment issues SPH Costs provides specialist Legal Aid costs support across England & Wales. 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 Links: Legal Aid Costs Drafting:https://www.sphcosts.com/legally-aided-costs CCMS Claim Rejected:https://www.sphcosts.com/post/ccms-claim-rejected-what-happens-next Why Legal Aid Claims Are Reduced:https://www.sphcosts.com/post/why-legal-aid-claims-are-reduced Prior Authority Not Obtained:https://www.sphcosts.com/post/prior-authority-not-obtained-can-fees-still-be-recovered

Detailed assessment proceedings under CPR Part 47 frequently involve multiple court fees which are often overlooked until proceedings are underway. Solicitors, insurers and litigants dealing with assessment of costs proceedings may encounter fees relating to: Part 8 issue applications Default Costs Certificates Assessment hearings N244 applications Appeals Court of Protection assessments Understanding the current fee structure is important both for costs budgeting purposes and for assessing recoverability during detailed assessment proceedings. This guide summarises the current court fees relevant to assessment of costs and Part 8 costs proceedings in 2026. Part 8 Costs Proceedings Fees Detailed assessment proceedings are commonly commenced using the CPR Part 8 procedure. The following fees currently apply: Application Type Fee Apply to challenge a solicitor’s bill (Part 8 application) £67 Apply for an order in costs-only proceedings (Part 8 application) £67 Although relatively modest, these issue fees are often overlooked when considering the overall costs exposure associated with assessment proceedings. Default Costs Certificate Fees Where a receiving party serves a Bill of Costs and the paying party fails to serve Points of Dispute within the required period, the receiving party may apply for a Default Costs Certificate. Current fees are: Application Type Fee Apply for a Default Costs Certificate £80 Apply to set aside a Default Costs Certificate £148 Applications to set aside Default Costs Certificates frequently arise where deadlines have been missed or where procedural issues emerge during detailed assessment proceedings. General Application Fees (N244) Detailed assessment proceedings often involve interim procedural applications. Current N244 application fees are: Application Type Fee By consent or without notice £123 On notice £313 These applications may concern: Extensions of time Relief from sanctions Stay applications Amendments to Points of Dispute Procedural directions In substantial costs disputes, multiple interlocutory applications can significantly increase overall litigation spend. Detailed Assessment Hearing Fees The largest fees in detailed assessment proceedings are usually the assessment hearing fees themselves. The applicable fee depends upon the value of costs claimed. Civil Case Assessment Fees Costs Claimed Fee Up to £15,000 £398 Up to £50,000 £801 Up to £100,000 £1,192 Up to £150,000 £1,595 Up to £200,000 £1,992 Up to £300,000 £2,988 Up to £500,000 £4,980 More than £500,000 £6,640 Family Case Assessment Fees Costs Claimed Fee Up to £15,000 £335 Up to £50,000 £675 Up to £100,000 £1,005 Up to £150,000 £1,345 Up to £200,000 £1,680 Up to £300,000 £2,520 Up to £500,000 £4,200 More than £500,000 £5,600 The scale of these fees means that proportionality and settlement strategy become increasingly important in higher-value costs disputes. Legal Aid and Court of Protection Assessment Fees Separate fees apply in Legal Aid and Court of Protection assessment proceedings. Assessment Type Fee Legal aid only family case fee £200 Legal aid only civil case fee £237 Court of Protection assessment £99 These lower fees reflect the specialist nature of publicly funded and Court of Protection work. For Legal Aid costs guidance see: https://www.sphcosts.com/legal-aid-costs-drafting For Court of Protection costs support see: https://www.sphcosts.com/court-of-protection-bills Appeal Fees in Costs Proceedings Appeals from decisions of Costs Officers may attract additional fees. Current appeal fees include: Appeal Type Fee General appeals against a Costs Officer £249 Criminal fee appeals £123 Appeals are relatively uncommon but may arise where disputes concern: Proportionality Guideline Hourly Rates Budget departures Significant reductions Procedural fairness Are Detailed Assessment Court Fees Recoverable? In many cases, court fees incurred during detailed assessment proceedings are themselves recoverable as part of the costs of assessment. However, recovery may depend upon: Conduct of the parties Proportionality Negotiation history Whether proceedings could reasonably have been avoided The outcome achieved at assessment Where a party pursues unreasonable challenges or adopts disproportionate positions, recovery of assessment costs may be affected. Why Early Costs Advice Matters Detailed assessment proceedings can become expensive quickly once: Assessment hearing fees Counsel’s fees N244 applications Negotiation costs Drafting costs are taken into account. Early specialist advice frequently assists with: Reducing exposure Narrowing disputes Improving settlement prospects Assessing proportionality Managing procedural deadlines For paying party support see:https://www.sphcosts.com/challenge-bill-of-costs Conclusion Detailed assessment proceedings under CPR Part 47 involve a range of court fees which can significantly affect overall litigation costs. From modest Part 8 issue fees to substantial assessment hearing fees in high-value disputes, parties should understand the procedural and financial implications before commencing or defending assessment proceedings. Careful costs management and early specialist advice remain essential to controlling exposure during 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 Guide: https://www.sphcosts.com/post/detailed-assessment-of-costs-guide Challenge a Bill of Costs: https://www.sphcosts.com/challenge-bill-of-costs Legal Aid Costs Drafting: https://www.sphcosts.com/legal-aid-costs-drafting Court of Protection Bills: https://www.sphcosts.com/court-of-protection-bills

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.