Changes to the Deputy Standards 2023

Ellie Howard-TaylorLeave a comment

There has been an update to the existing Property & Finance and Health & Welfare Deputy Standards (‘Standards’), which will come into effect from mid-February 2023.

The single set of refreshed standards will apply to everyone who has been appointed as Deputy, including lay Deputies. Guidance tailored for professionals, public authorities and lay Deputies will also be published at the same time.

This is not the introduction of a new set of standards. The guiding principles of the refreshed standards remain the same and continue to be aligned with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). The main changes are to make the standards more focused.

What has been changed?

The number of standards has been reduced from more than 40 to 8 core areas, which reflect the duties and responsibilities of all Deputies. Much of the material included in the original standards has now been re-shaped and included within the guidance documents.

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has contacted all Deputies to notify them of the changes.

The refreshed standards can be found at published at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/opg-deputy-standards.

Post-Judgment Security for Costs? The SCCO Clarifies the Position

ujjainimistryLeave a comment

In the case of Magomedov & Ors v Rabinovich & Ors [2026] EWHC 962 (SCCO), Costs Judge Brown considered an “unusual application” concerning whether the SCCO had jurisdiction to order security for costs in detailed assessment proceedings.

Background Facts

Following the substantive claim, the Applicants (Defendants in the original claim) served Notice of Commencement of Detailed Assessment and a Bill of Costs totalling £4.2million, pursuant to four costs orders made in their favour. No request for detailed assessment was made, and Points of Dispute had not been served. Also, interim payments totalling £1.8 million had already been received.

The Applicants applied for an Order under CPR 25 for the Respondents (the Claimants in the original claim) to provide security for the costs of detailed assessment proceedings. The Respondents opposed the application on the basis that the SCCO lacked jurisdiction to consider the application because its powers were limited to those set out in CPR 47, which provides for the court to grant an interim costs certificate ordering the paying party to pay such sum as the SCCO considers appropriate.

The Applicants sought the sum of £336,000 which was some 70% of the costs it said would be incurred of £480,000.  A bill of costs had been prepared at a cost of £220,000. It was said that some £259,000 would be incurred in the assessment, assuming a three-week hearing.

The Court referred to the relevant provisions of CPR 25, specifically 25.1 which enables the court to grant an order for the security of costs as one of the interim remedies outlined in that subsection. Subsections 25.26(1) and 25.27 were also relied upon in support of the application.

The Application

The Application was dismissed. Costs Judge Brown held that, although the court hearing the substantive claim may order security for the costs of detailed assessment as part of the overall costs of the proceedings, once the substantive proceedings had concluded, the SCCO did not possess the wider jurisdiction available to the court hearing the substantive claim and was instead limited to the narrower powers under CPR Part 47.

While CPR 25.12 allows the court dealing with the substantive claim to order security for costs “after judgment”, this did not extend to subsequent detailed assessment proceedings. CPR 47 was described as a ‘self-contained code’ governing detailed assessment and did not incorporate the provisions of CPR 25.

The Court also emphasised that CPR 47 contains mechanisms that are designed to protect the receiving party and that the only interim remedy available in detailed assessment proceedings was an interim costs certificate under CPR 47.16.

The judge identified several structural reasons for declining jurisdiction, including the absence of a clear enforcement mechanism, the difficulty in identifying the “defendant” for CPR 25 purposes once the parties had become receiving and paying parties, and the risk of creating disproportionate satellite litigation.

In any event, even if jurisdiction had existed, the judge stated that the application would have been refused as a matter of discretion, particularly because the Applicants had failed to raise the issue before the court determining the substantive claim. The appropriate course for parties seeking security for the costs of detailed assessment is therefore to apply to the court dealing with the substantive proceedings, which has sufficient power to include such costs within a security for costs order.

Conclusion

The Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) has held for the first time that it lacks jurisdiction to order security for costs under CPR 25, which in turn highlights the fact that CPR Part 47 operates as a ‘self-contained code’.

The judgment clarifies the limit of the SCCO’s jurisdiction, confirming that powers that derive from the CPR cannot be imported into general discretion.

The key takeaway for practitioners is if an application for security for costs is required, it should be made to the court hearing the underlying claim. Once the proceedings enter the costs jurisdiction in CPR 47, the available tools to remedy matters become narrower.

 

Ujjaini Mistry is a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Team at Clarion Solicitors and can be contacted on 07436 033368 or at Ujjaini.Mistry@clarionsolicitors.com.

The Proposed Amendments to the Costs Rules in the Employment Tribunal

angelanakoLeave a comment

On 6 May 2026, the Tribunal Procedure Committee (TPC) launched a consultation on potential reforms to costs rules across the First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and employment tribunals. The proposals are intended to promote greater consistency between tribunals and focus, in particular, on payments on account of costs and pro bono costs orders.

Payments on Account of Costs

At present, employment tribunals have authority to make costs orders under Part 13 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, however they do not have specific legal authority to order a payment on account of costs before a detailed assessment has taken place.

The TPC is proposing to address this gap by permitting employment tribunals to require the paying party to make a reasonable payment on account, where a costs order has been made and where a detailed assessment is to follow, in advance of that assessment being concluded. In line with other tribunals, employment tribunals would be required to take the approach that best achieves justice in each case.

Pro Bono Costs Orders

Employment tribunals already possess the power to make pro bono costs orders, as outlined by Section 194A of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007). The TPC proposes incorporating a short permissive rule in the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 to make express reference to this existing Tribunal power. The TPC is also consulting on whether employment tribunals should take additional factors into account when deciding whether to make a pro bono costs order and on what terms, its preliminary view being there are no other required matters.

Interest on Costs

No proposals are made regarding interest on costs in employment tribunals because that power remains with the government not the TPC. However, the consultation notes that the government is sympathetic to aligning the approach between the employment tribunal and other tribunals on the issue of interest on costs and will consider the outcome of the consultation.

Conclusion

The proposed amendments represent a potentially significant development in the employment tribunal costs regime as the consultation reflects efforts to improve consistency across tribunal jurisdictions.

Angela Nako is  a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com

$35 Million in Costs for a Two-Week Hearing: Is Arbitration Still More Cost Effective Than Litigation?

Image Daniel MurrayLeave a comment

Introduction The High Court’s decision in Genel Energy Miran Bina Bawi Limited v The Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq [2026] EWHC 1003 (Comm) reinforces two familiar themes in English arbitration law: the finality of arbitral awards and the limited scope for court intervention under the Arbitration Act 1996. The case arose from a challenge under […]

New Guidance on Post-Discharge Work in Court of Protection Costs

Lydia MarshallLeave a comment

The SCCO has recently provided guidance on post-discharge costs, clarifying their stance on authority for assessing these costs and what this means in terms of claiming work in detailed assessments.

What is “Post-Discharge Work”?

Post-discharge work refers to tasks undertaken after a Deputyship has officially ended. This could include wrapping up outstanding matters, liaising with successors, or providing accounts. While it might feel like a continuation of the Deputy’s duties, the SCCO has made it clear that the scope for cost recovery in these cases is very limited.

SCCO Guidance

According to the SCCO, a Deputy’s authority ceases upon discharge and therefore, the SCCO cannot assess costs for work done after discharge. The SCCO consider that post-discharge begins two days after the date on the seal of the discharge Order. This means any work undertaken after this short buffer period is technically outside the Deputy’s authority and will be disallowed on assessment as a result.

What Happens With Costs After Discharge?

Most discharge Orders include provisions for the costs to be agreed with the new Deputy. This allows some flexibility in transferring responsibility however, if agreement with the successor Deputy cannot be reached, the burden falls on the outgoing Deputy to determine the best way forward in terms of recovering their costs.

Practical Takeaways

  1. Plan ahead: Deputies should aim to complete as much work as possible before the discharge Order is sealed.
  2. Clarify costs in advance: If work is likely to continue post-discharge, consider negotiating with the successor Deputy before discharge and include a costs clause within the discharge Order to allow for costs to be agreed.
  3. Document carefully: Keep a clear record of any post-discharge tasks and communications—this can help if disputes over costs arise.

Conclusion

The SCCO guidance makes one thing clear: post-discharge costs are outside the formal remit of court assessment. While this may seem restrictive, it is consistent with the principle that a Deputy’s authority ends at discharge and Deputies to should take the appropriate steps ahead of the discharge to limit post-discharge work wherever possible. Effective planning and clear communication with successor Deputies can help mitigate potential disputes over outstanding costs.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.

The practicalities of costs budgeting in the B&PC when a preliminary issue or split trial may be appropriate

Anna LockyerLeave a comment

The Chancery Guide at paragraphs 6.10 and 6.11 is practical: consider early (and in any event before the first CMC/CCMC) whether a decisive issue can be tried first, or whether the case should be staged (for example, liability then quantum). It is important to align the case-management proposal with (i) the DQ narrative, (ii) draft directions for the first CMC, and (iii) the costs budget, clearly setting out stage 1 work.

Paragraph 6.37D confirms that this approach also applies to PD51ZG1 and the relevant guidance is set out as follows:

6.10 Costs and time can sometimes be saved by identifying decisive issues, or potentially decisive issues, and ordering that they are tried first. A trial of a preliminary issue may also be appropriate where its determination, although not itself decisive of the whole case, may enable the parties to settle the remainder of the dispute or otherwise shorten the proceedings. An example would be a relatively short question of law which can be tried without significant delay (or much in the way of disclosure or witness evidence) but which would be determinative of one or more of the key issues in dispute.

6.11 Parties should actively consider at the earliest opportunity, and certainly in advance of the first CMC / CCMC, whether there are any issues which are suitable for determination as a preliminary issue, or which should be tried separately such as a split between liability and quantum. If possible, parties should indicate when filing DQs whether a preliminary issue or split trial is under consideration and provide a summary of the proposed approach in Section I of the DQ. Parties should give careful consideration to the approach to costs budgeting and disclosure where a preliminary issue or split trial is proposed or agreed.

Practical steps (for one party, or both parties by agreement)

  • Confirm whether PD51ZG1 applies (including any dispute about whether the claim is £1m or more / seeks only non-monetary relief) and diarise the budgeting steps.
  • Define the preliminary issue / split with precision: what is being tried first, why it is (potentially) decisive, and what it will remove from the remainder of the case.
  • Stress-test the procedural footprint for stage 1: what (if any) disclosure, witness evidence and expert evidence is genuinely required now, and what can properly be deferred.
  • Shape budgeting assumptions to match staging: make clear which work/phases are included in stage 1 and what is excluded (with a mechanism to revisit later if a second stage remains).
  • Engage early with the other side to narrow the issue(s) and, if possible, agree directions (or at least exchange short position statements before the CMC).
  • Use the DQ and draft directions to put a workable proposal before the court: issue(s), estimated hearing length, evidence/disclosure limits, listing window, and what happens after determination (ADR/stay/further directions).
  • Be ready on proportionality: a short comparison of time/cost for “single trial” vs “preliminary issue/split” is often what makes the application persuasive at the first CMC.

If you want a preliminary issue or split trial, the practical route is to define the issue tightly, demonstrate a genuinely reduced stage 1 footprint (disclosure/evidence), and present a directions and budgeting proposal the court can adopt at the first CMC.

The full guide can be found here: The Business and Property Courts of England & Wales Chancery Guide 2022

Anna Lockyer is a Senior Associate in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com.

Changes to Rolls Building Statements of Costs

Anna LockyerLeave a comment

As of 14 April 2026, more specific requirements became applicable to the filing and service and the format of statements of costs in the Chancery Division, TCC, Commercial Court and London Circuit Court of the Rolls Building.

  • Parties should file and serve an Excel version of N260 for all summary assessments, in addition to a signed read-only PDF.
  • Excel-Template-N260-Clean-1-4-26.xlsx is the correct template Excel version to use.

The relevant Practice Note can be found here:

Rolls Building Practice Note – Summary Assessments (2026) – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

*Practice Note of 13 March 2026 (which referenced N260A and N260B) can be disregarded.

Anna Lockyer is a Senior Associate in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com.

Who is “Carrying on the Conduct of Litigation”? Guidance from the Court of Appeal in CILEX v Mazur and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369

Ellena HunterLeave a comment

Background

In CILEX v Mazur and others [2026] EWCA Civ 369, the Court of Appeal provided important clarification on the interpretation of the phrase “carry on the conduct of litigation” in the Legal Services Act 2007 (“LSA 2007”). The judgment addresses the question whether an unauthorised person, working under the supervision of an authorised individual, may lawfully perform litigation tasks without committing a criminal offence. It further provides some guidance on what acts are unlikely to constitute the conduct of litigation.

The appeal arose from a High Court decision which held that unauthorised persons who performed acts constituting the conduct of litigation, even under the supervision of an authorised individual, were themselves carrying on a reserved legal activity contrary to section 14 of the LSA 2007. That interpretation had significant implications for law firms, law centres, and access to justice.

Legislation

The LSA 2007 identifies the ‘conduct of litigation’ as a reserved legal activity. Schedule 2 provides that it includes:

  • The issuing of proceedings;
  • The commencement, prosecution and defence of proceedings; and
  • The performance of ancillary functions in relation to those proceedings.

Section 14 makes it a criminal offence to carry on a reserved legal activity unless the person is authorised to do so. The central issue on the appeal was whether an unauthorised employee who performs litigation tasks under supervision is themselves ‘carrying on’ the conduct of litigation, or whether that activity remains attributable to the authorised individual who retains responsibility for the case.

Can unauthorised persons ‘carry on the conduct of litigation’ if they carry out acts that constitute the conduct of litigation under the supervision of authorised individuals?

At first instance, the judge drew a distinction between assisting or supporting an authorised individual in litigation and conducting litigation under supervision.

The judge held that only the former was lawful. On that analysis, unauthorised persons could assist with litigation work but could not perform acts which fell within the statutory definition of the conduct of litigation, even where an authorised person supervised their work and retained ultimate responsibility.

That approach reflected the submissions of the Law Society and the SRA and would have required close, step‑by‑step oversight by authorised individuals, including prior approval of documents before they were used, even in urgent cases.

The Court of Appeal rejected that interpretation. It held that the ordinary meaning of the statutory language distinguishes between the tasks which make up the conduct of litigation and the direction, control and responsibility for those tasks.

The Court concluded that an unauthorised person does not carry on the conduct of litigation merely because they perform litigation tasks for and on behalf of an authorised individual. Provided the authorised person retains responsibility and puts in place appropriate arrangements for delegation and supervision, it is the authorised person who is carrying on the reserved legal activity.

The Court, therefore, held that the distinction adopted at first instance between ‘assisting’ and ‘conducting litigation under supervision’ was incorrect.

What acts constitute conducting litigation?

The Court of Appeal declined to set out an exhaustive list, however, it confirmed that a number of activities are unlikely to constitute the conduct of litigation, including:

  • Pre‑litigation work;
  • Giving legal advice in connection with proceedings;
  • Correspondence with opposing parties;
  • Gathering evidence;
  • Instructing and liaising with experts or counsel; and
  • Signing statements of truth or other documents which the CPR permits a legal representative (defined in CPR 2.3 including a solicitor’s employee) to sign.

Delegation and supervision

The Court emphasised that the LSA 2007 does not mandate a single model of supervision. There had to be proper direction, management supervision and control. However, the level of supervision required will depend on the circumstances. In some cases, particularly complex or high‑risk matters, closer oversight and prior approval may be appropriate. In other, more routine cases, supervision may properly consist of structured systems, regular meetings, and sampling of work.

The statute does not require prior authorisation of every task in every case. The question is whether the authorised individual has retained responsibility and exercised appropriate direction and control.

The Court of Appeal made clear that details of the appropriate supervision were a matter for the regulators. Following the judgment, the Law Society has issued a Practice Note which is key reading for firms, solicitors and their employees as it sets out its view of good practice and practical steps firms can take. Further guidance is awaited from the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s judgment has provided reassurance across the legal industry and has restored a practical and workable model of legal service delivery which aligns with the regulatory objectives of the LSA 2007, including improving access to justice. It confirms that the LSA 2007 is concerned not with who performs individual litigation tasks, but with who retains responsibility for them. Unauthorised staff may lawfully carry out litigation tasks under appropriate supervision, without committing a criminal offence, provided responsibility remains with an authorised individual. However, an element of uncertainty remains particularly as what amounts to appropriate supervision depends on the circumstances, and we can therefore expect to see further developments.

Ellena Hunter is an Associate in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com

The importance of being ‘certain’ in a retainer, whether a Contentious Business Agreement or not

Anna LockyerLeave a comment

A billionaire client (C) has been successful in an application in the High Court for an assessment of a series of invoices totalling more than $35 million, raised by C’s legal representative US firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (D).

In Safra v Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP [2026] EWHC 703 (SCCO), Costs Judge Leonard examined whether there was justification to order an assessment of the invoices in the context of the Solicitors Act 1974, specifically:

  • Whether the letter of engagement constituted a Contentious Business Agreement (CBA) within the meaning of Section 59 of the 1974 Act
  • If D was entitled to deliver interim statutory invoices and whether the invoices were compliant with the relevant requirements

Background

D had acted for C in a dispute over the estate of C’s father, a wealthy Brazilian banker, which involved several complex arbitrations.

C’s application of 17 December 2024 disputed the invoices rendered between 10 December 2022 and 17 September 2024 in relation to this matter.

C contended that “$35 million is an unusually large sum to incur over less than two years in even the heaviest of litigation”. Not only did C submit that time charges were high, they argued expenses and disbursements were also “of a surprising nature and amount”.

It was common ground that the work undertaken was ‘contentious business’ for the purpose of the 1974 Act and that the engagement letter did not need to be a labelled a CBA, to be a CBA.

Notably, the engagement letter contained a right to apply for assessment, which is not consistent with a retainer being a CBA.

The benefits of a CBA for D

It would have suited D if the engagement letter had been deemed a CBA because under section 60(1) of the 1974 Act, costs incurred under a CBA shall not be subject to assessment. D could have resisted the application on that basis.

That said, 61(4B) of the Act allows for assessment of the number of hours worked and whether they are excessive, when a CBA is relied on and when the client objects to the costs generally, providing the client has not alleged the CBA is unfair or unreasonable; the scope for C to challenge would be limited in these circumstances.

Engagement Letter not a CBA as lacked certainty

Despite D submitting that the terms of the engagement letter were negotiated with C – an experienced and commercially sophisticated client with very experienced lawyers, and that the  arbitrations had been extremely complex; their likely course unpredictable at the time of the engagement letter; and the full scope of the work unknown at the outset, it was determined by the Costs Judge that D’s engagement letter did not amount to a CBA.

There was acknowledgment that the long hours and expenses were commensurate with the nature and scale of work and with the value, weight and complexity of the litigation, but the judge expressed concern with the lack of financial information provided to C:

“unilateral, open-ended provisions for hourly rate increases, the amounts and timing of which were entirely at the discretion of the Defendant, are inconsistent with the requisite characteristic of certainty.”

D had not kept C informed of costs and failed to advise of rate increases of up to $2,095 per hour. The engagement letter provided for only a broad range of current hourly rates, capable of unilateral alteration by D. No fixed fee provision or a fee fixing mechanism existed.

It was made clear that certainty is paramount when determining whether a retainer is a CBA.

The Judge went on to say that if he had found the engagement letter to be a CBA, he would have set it aside in any event, because the unreasonably incorporated unilateral open-ended provisions, prevented C from challenging increases to hourly rates.

Chamberlain Bill, not Interim Statutory Invoices

Although it was determined that the engagement letter allowed D to deliver interim statutory invoices, and that monthly statements had been provided, the description of the monthly statements in the engagement letter and the invoices did not correspond.

The invoices were found to lack “the requisite element of finality” to be compliant interim statutory invoices.

Instead, they were held to collectively constitute a single Chamberlain bill, delivered to C on 17 September 2024, capable of assessment in its entirety under section 70(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974, as the bill had already been partially paid.

The Judge made clear that he would have exercised the court’s discretion and established that “special circumstances” as per section 70(3) were applicable, to justify an order for assessment in any event, as there was an evident failure by D to provide adequate costs information.

“The Defendant’s failure to notify the Claimant of its hourly rate increases seems symptomatic of a lack of awareness of the importance of keeping the client fully informed of the costs position. However much he would have known about what was being done for him, and however pleased he may have been at the level of service provided, the Claimant was not regularly being kept aware of what it was costing him.”

Costs Judge Leonard identified numerous failings throughout this matter relating to communications between lawyer and client regarding costs, which ultimately resulted in the order for assessment. Concluding the judgment with a determination that special circumstances would have been established due to inadequate costs information, even if the invoices had met the interim statutory invoice criteria, exemplifies the extent of potential consequences if clients are not kept clearly and fully informed on costs.

Anna Lockyer is a Senior Associate in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com.

Costs Consequences of the Claimant’s Late Acceptance of the Defendant’s Part 36 offer

angelanakoLeave a comment

A recent Court of Appeal decision provided important clarification on how legal costs were calculated when a Part 36 settlement offer was accepted late.

Background

The Claimant in Attersley v UK Insurance Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 217 was injured in a road traffic accident in March 2018. Whilst the claim began under the Road Traffic Accident (RTA) Protocol, it exited the protocol and in February 2021, the Claimant issued Part 7 proceedings, valuing the claim up to £150,000 supported by several expert reports.

The Defendant admitted liability in March 2021 and made a Part 36 offer in the sum of £45,000. The Claimant did not accept this offer within the 21-day relevant period set by the rules. Consequently, the claim was allocated to the multi-track in January 2022, which typically allows lawyers to recover their costs based on what is considered reasonable rather than fixed amounts. The Part 36 offer was accepted in July 2022.

As the Claimant accepted the Part 36 offer outside the 21-day relevant period, and once the claim had been assigned to the multi-track, there was a dispute as to whether the costs could be recovered on a standard basis or were limited to fixed recoverable costs.

Outcome

The Court of Appeal considered the version of the civil procedure rules which applied at the time and held that the key date is when the 21-day period for accepting the Part 36 offer expires, rather than when the offer is eventually accepted, meaning that Claimants who accept an offer after the relevant period will generally be entitled to the amount of costs they would have received had they accepted the offer on the last day of the relevant period. As during that 21-day period the claim remained within the fixed costs regime, the Claimant was entitled to fixed costs which applied at that stage of the proceedings.

The court highlighted that the rules governing settlement offers are designed to encourage early settlement and clarity surrounding financial risk, therefore Defendants should be able to rely on the costs environment that existed when the offer’s relevant period expired. Allowing later events, such as the case being allocated to the multi-track, to change the cost consequences would create unnecessary uncertainty. The court outlined that:

“it is hard to see why a Claimant who [accepted the offer outside the relevant period]…should be in a better position than one who accepts the offer within time.”

Conclusion

The key point of this judgment is that if an offer is made and expires while the case is still within the fixed‑costs regime, the fixed‑costs rules apply to the consequences of accepting that offer, even if the case later evolves or moves outside the fixed‑costs regime.

Although this decision was made in the context of the pre-October 2023 fixed costs rules, it is expected that this is the same approach the Courts will apply under the new fixed‑costs rules introduced in October 2023. That is because those rules are also built around clear stages and predictable cost consequences.

Angela Nako is a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com

SCCO Updates Filing Guidance for Court of Protection Bills

Leah MorrisLeave a comment

The Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) has earlier this week issued revised guidance on filing supporting papers for Court of Protection bills, coming into effect on 20 April 2026. These updates aim to streamline the assessment process and improve efficiency for both practitioners and Costs Officers.

The SCCO continues to support two methods for submitting supporting documents: digital bundles provided via the Document Upload Centre (DUC) and physical files of papers sent in the post or DX. A summary of the latest guidance is set out below.

1) Digital Bundles via the Document Upload Centre (DUC)

The Document Upload Centre (DUC) allows users to submit supporting papers electronically and is the SCCO’s preferred method, provided submissions follow the required format.

It is important to note:

  • The DUC is only for supporting documents
  • Key documents, including the bill of costs, N258B and court orders, must still be filed via CE-File in the usual way
  • To access the DUC, users must request a link by emailing the SCCO

In terms of formatting, bundles must be in PDF format only. File names should include the SCCO reference number, the Protected Party’s surname, and the billing period or case type (for example, statutory will or property sale). The SCCO also find it helpful if an indication of the bill type is included within the file name, such as general management with the relevant period dates, so it is recommended that this is included.

Where possible, a single bundle should be submitted. If multiple files are necessary, these should be clearly labelled with the relevant date ranges rather than uploading individual documents separately.

Documents must be arranged in chronological order (oldest first), with key documents placed at the beginning of the bundle. These include:

  • The OPG102 and OPG105
  • Client care letter
  • Disbursement evidence
  • Counsel fee invoices

The level of detail within documents remains important. Emails and file notes should clearly show dates and times, with correspondence identifying both sender and recipient. File and attendance notes must also record the fee earner completing the work and the time claimed.

To assist Costs Officers in locating documents quickly, the SCCO recommend:

  • Including a detailed index or bookmarks with clear dates and descriptions so items can be easily identified and cross-referenced against the bill of costs
  • Adding hyperlinks to documents where possible
  • Avoiding duplication of documents or email chains

In terms of timing:

  • For existing cases: upload at the same time as filing the bill (once the SCCO reference number is available)
  • For new cases: upload after receiving confirmation of the SCCO reference number (e.g. SC-2025-COP-001234)

2) Physical Paper Filing

Firms can still submit hard copy bundles by post. While digital filing is encouraged, it is not mandatory.

If submitting papers physically, they should be sent to:

Senior Courts Costs Office
Thomas More Building
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
DX: 44454 Strand

Many of the same principles apply to paper bundles as to electronic ones. Files should be clearly labelled with the SCCO reference number, the Protected Party’s name and the billing period or case type, and documents should be organised in chronological order.

Key documents should be placed at the front of the bundle (or the first bundle if multiple are submitted), including:

  • The OPG102 and OPG105
  • Client care letter
  • Disbursement evidence
  • Counsel fee invoices
  • A copy of the e-filing acceptance notice, including return details
  • Where multiple boxes or bundles are required:
  • Label them sequentially (e.g. Box 1 of 2)
  • Arrange documents chronologically across all boxes and bundles
  • In terms of timing:
  • Papers should be sent as soon as possible after CE-File acceptance
  • They must be submitted within 28 days

Mandatory Filing Notification

Each time a bill is submitted via CE-File, you must clearly state how you intend to file supporting documents. This should be included in the “filing comments” by confirming either ‘paper’ or ‘DUC’. Failure to include this information may result in the filing being rejected.

Final Thoughts

These updates from the SCCO reflect a continued move toward digital efficiency while still accommodating traditional filing methods.

For practitioners, the key takeaway is simple: clarity, organisation, and compliance with formatting rules are essential. Adopting the DUC where possible, and doing so correctly, will help avoid delays and ensure a smoother assessment process, particularly given the continued delays and significant turnaround time for receipt of assessed bills, which remains in excess of a year at present.

For further guidance or to request DUC access, contact the SCCO directly at scco@justice.gov.uk.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.