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

The Court has published the information below. Below is the latest information on current processing times received from the Senior Court Costs Office: Current Processing Dates : ·         For e-filings that have been submitted but not yet accepted or rejected, we are currently working on new bill filings submitted the week commencing:   17 th  November 2025 ·         Costs Officers  are currently being assigned bills of costs for which supporting papers were received in the last week of October 2024 ·         The Admin Team  is currently sending out assessed bills that were returned to them by the Costs Officers the week commencing 24th November 2025 ·         The admin team is currently sending out certificates submitted week commencing 17 th November 2025 Enquiry Guidance To help us focus resources on reducing the backlog, we kindly ask that you avoid chasing the following: ·         E-filings submitted during or after the week commencing   17 th November 2025 ·         that have not yet been accepted or rejected. ·         Bills for which supporting paperwork was submitted in the last week of October 2024  onwards. ·         Final Costs Certificates where less than two weeks  have passed since confirmation of acceptance. Operational Updates & Improvements We understand delays can be frustrating, and we are working hard to improve the situation. The reduction in follow-up queries is helping us dedicate more time to clearing the backlog. Measures are being taken to improve processing times in the longer term. These include Training of New Staff & Recruitment of New Cost Officers. Additional Notes Any updates provided on individual bills are estimates only . Staff are unable to guarantee when a specific case will be processed.

Managing the affairs of someone who lacks capacity is an enormous responsibility. Deputies must ensure the protected party’s needs are met, all decisions are properly documented, and costs remain reasonable and proportionate. Yet, when it comes to preparing Court of Protection (COP) bills, many deputies unintentionally undersell the time and care involved in their work. At a time of increasing scrutiny by the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO), maximising COP bills is not about inflating costs — it’s about accurately reflecting the work actually done , ensuring the deputyship remains financially sustainable and compliant. Below are practical steps deputies can take to ensure their costs are properly recorded, justified, and recoverable. 1. Keep Detailed, Contemporaneous File Notes The single most important factor in maximising recoverable costs is the quality of your file notes. Strong file notes should: Record who did the work , why it was necessary , and what outcome it achieved Be made at the time  the work was done (or as close as possible) Reflect not only actions, but also professional judgment  and decision-making For example, instead of : “Phone call with care home.” Use: “Spoke with care home manager regarding concerns about deterioration in P’s mobility. Agreed urgent review of care plan to ensure appropriate support.” This level of detail demonstrates necessity and avoids reductions. 2. Properly Record Travel and Mileage Travel is often under-recorded or poorly justified, leading to avoidable reductions. To maximise recovery: Record start and finish times Note the purpose  of the visit and why it couldn’t be handled remotely Ensure mileage records are consistent with mapping tools Consider whether the seniority of the fee earner attending is proportionate In-person visits remain vital in deputyship work — but must be clearly justified. 3. Ensure All Work Categories Are Captured Deputyship work spans many categories, but common areas are often missed or under-recorded. Frequently overlooked items include: Liaising with social services Ensuring compliance with deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) Managing disputes with family members Reviewing bank statements and analysing spending Arranging and attending multidisciplinary team meetings Time spent preparing statutory visit packs for OPG visits Responding to safeguarding alerts Small increments of time quickly add up over a year. 4. Distinguish Between Administrative and Deputy-Level Work The SCCO expects deputies to delegate appropriately — but also recognises that certain tasks must be performed by the deputy or a fee earner. Deputy-only tasks typically include: Complex decision-making Financial planning Best-interests decisions High-level risk management If a more junior fee earner or admin staff member completes a task, record it as such — but ensure deputies record their supervisory role . Delegation helps show proportionality and improves recoverability. 5. Review Hourly Rates and Update Annually Many COP bills under-recover simply because the hourly rates are outdated. Deputies should: Ensure annual applications for general management increases are made where appropriate Use guideline hourly rates correctly and update them when revised Clearly justify uplifts (e.g., where a case is especially complex or high-risk) Failing to maintain correct rates results in automatic reductions — even when the work was necessary and reasonable. 6. Provide Evidence of Complexity Complexity supports higher rates and greater time expenditure, but must be demonstrated , not assumed. Useful evidence includes: Challenging behaviour Multi-agency involvement High-value or high-risk financial assets Frequent safeguarding concerns Complex care or medical needs Your file should tell the story of the case’s complexity. If it doesn’t, your bill won’t either. 7. Keep Clear Financial Management Records Financial tasks make up a significant portion of deputyship work, yet they are often insufficiently recorded. Make sure you: Document every financial decision Record time spent reviewing accounts, budgets, and care costs Keep clear audit trails of payments Record time spent liaising with investment advisers or managing property matters This demonstrates due diligence and safeguards against potential challenge. 8. Prepare Yearly Schedules of Work Preparing a year-end summary helps ensure the final bill is comprehensive and consistent. A good schedule should include: Total time per fee earner Key events and decision-making milestones Breakdown of categories (property, finances, health/welfare, supervision, visits) This also supports deputyship reporting obligations. 9. Engage a Specialist Costs Draftsman Early A costs draftsman experienced in Court of Protection matters can: Identify missing work categories Correct inconsistencies Maximise recoverable time Prepare a fully compliant bill Provide advice on future file-keeping improvements Reduce the risk of SCCO queries or reductions Many deputies find that early involvement not only improves recoverability but enhances compliance. Conclusion Maximising Court of Protection bills is not about increasing costs artificially — it’s about ensuring the time, expertise, and responsibility involved in deputyship work is properly captured and justified . By maintaining detailed records, evidencing complexity, delegating appropriately, and reviewing your rates and processes regularly, deputies can significantly improve their recoverable costs while remaining fully compliant with COP and SCCO expectations. If you’d like help preparing or reviewing your Court of Protection bills, optimising your file-keeping practices, or minimising SCCO reductions, SPH Costing Services can support you every step of the way.

Refusal to mediate – sanctions won’t always apply. Following the decision of Briggs LJ in PGF II SA v OMFS Company 1 Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 1288, there has been increased focus on the duties of parties to litigation to consider some form of ADR, most usually mediation. In that case, Briggs LJ said: “In my judgment, the time has now come for this court firmly to endorse the advice given in Chapter 11.56 of the ADR Handbook, that silence in the face of an invitation to participate in ADR is, as a general rule, of itself unreasonable, regardless whether an outright refusal, or a refusal to engage in the type of ADR requested, or to do so at the time requested, might have been justified by the identification of reasonable grounds” and went on “ this case sends out an important message to civil litigants, requiring them to engage with a serious invitation to participate in ADR, even if they have reasons which might justify a refusal, or the undertaking of some other form of ADR, or ADR at some other time in the litigation…the court’s task in encouraging the more proportionate conduct of civil litigation is so important in current economic circumstances that it is appropriate to emphasise that message by a sanction which, even if a little more vigorous than I would have preferred, nonetheless operates pour encourager les autres” However, in a more recent case before the Court of Appeal, Gore v Naheed & Ahmed [2017] EWCA Civ 369, Patten LJ has made it plain that there is some difference of opinion in that Court as to the approach to be adopted, as may be seen from his rather caustic phrasing: “Mr McNae referred us to the decision of this Court in PGF II SA v OMFS Company 1 Ltd in which Briggs LJ emphasised the need, as he saw it, for the courts to encourage parties to embark on ADR in appropriate cases and said that silence in the face of an invitation to participate in ADR should, as a general rule, be treated as unreasonable regardless of whether a refusal to mediate might in the circumstances have been justified. Speaking for myself, I have some difficulty in accepting that the desire of a party to have his rights determined by a court of law in preference to mediation can be said to be unreasonable conduct particularly when, as here, those rights are ultimately vindicated” Clearly Patten LJ struggles to accept the basic concept of some form of primacy of mediation over litigation. He went on to note that even if the failure to engage in ADR was found to be unreasonable, this would not necessarily and automatically result in a penalty in costs (a point also made by Briggs LJ in “PGF”). It is a factor to be taken into account, but not determinative of itself. There is perhaps a distinction to be drawn between failing to respond at all to an invitation to mediate and a refusal to mediate, but in Gore the Judge below had taken the refusal into account, but concluded that such a step was not unreasonable – there were complex issues of law which made the case unsuitable for mediation. The decision thus falls within the description of the law as described in “PGF”, particularly bearing in mind the fact that costs remain within the discretion of the Judge, but the emphasis on the question of refusal to mediate as to how this should be applied on any costs award is clearly weaker in Gore. The case may well therefore be a useful one to have in the armoury where there is an allegation of poor conduct on this ground.