The matter of XX (a protected party by her husband and litigation friend YY) and ZZ v (1) Jordan Young (2) Aviva Insurance Limited [2025] EWHC 680 (SCCO) concerned the assessment of the Second Claimant’s costs with regards to quantum only.

Costs Judge Nagalingam heard a 3-day detailed assessment hearing, following which he heard oral submissions, and then assessed elements of the bill whilst sitting in private. The Judge then produced a written judgment with the outcome of the assessment. The primary purpose of this approach was as a result of concerns to avoid a disproportionate approach to the assessment of time spent on documents.

The written judgment provides the Judge’s comments on several elements of the bill which are commonly challenged within Points of Dispute.

Internal Correspondence

93.25 hours was claimed within the bill of costs for internal communications, of which 34.35 hours was delegating work. The Judge disagreed with the Defendant’s argument that internal correspondence was irrecoverable in principle and stated that delegation cannot be achieved without some communication medium between the conducting fee earner and a junior. This was caveated as the Judge highlighted that where a senior fee earner has delegated tasks, ‘it must not lead to increased costs in monetary terms as compared with the senior fee earner undertaking the task personally’.

The Defendant’s secondary position was that the time claimed was excessive and the Court was asked to “allow a reasonable and proportionate amount to take into account the issues previously raised in respect of the Claimant’s conduct.” However, the Judge found that this was ‘far too broad an invitation’ and in light of the Defendant’s failure to identify which items they challenge, and how much they proposed be allowed, made no further reductions to this category of costs.

Document Time

Excluding the Costs Assessment phase, the total time spent on documents was 516.3 hours. This was split as 205.57 hours at grade A, 27.78 hours at grade B, and 282.95 hours at grade D. The Paying Party offered a total of 182 hours; split as 60 hours at grade A, 10 hours at grade B, 12 hours at grade C, and 100 hours at grade D. The Receiving Party made no concessions to the time in the Replies to the Points of Dispute. The Judge ultimately allowed 125 hours at grade A, 19.4 hours at grade B, and 150 hours at grade D.

The categories of challenges to the document time, and the Judge’s decision on the same, are set out below.

Delegation

As with internal correspondence, delegation was challenged in the document time. The Judge commented that whilst the delegation of tasks to lower grade fee earners was encouraged, it ‘should not be to the detriment of expediency and efficiency’ and delegation should be done ‘with care’.

Duplication

The Judge found that there were too many occasions where a grade D fee earner was ‘needlessly involved’ and that there was no justification for the conducting fee earner to be involved in the more basic aspects of running the case which grade D should have been deferred to.

Legal Research

The limited time claimed for legal research was disallowed on the basis that ‘one cannot hold themselves out as being specialist without utilising the benefit of gained knowledge when engaging experts and suitable counsel.’

Consent forms / forms of authority

The Judge rejected the argument that such forms were an administrative task or that the preparation of the forms should be subsumed into the costs of the outgoing correspondence sending the same.

Case / Action plan

The Defendant’s argument that the use of a case / action plan was irrecoverable in principle was rejected. However, the Judge did caveat that the use of such a document is only effective when it results in a time saving.

Sharelink, passwords and pagination

The Judge held that time spent on sharelinks, passwords, and pagination was purely administrative work and was disallowed.

Collation

Whilst the Judge found that collating documents was not purely administrative work, there was a distinction between the ‘important fee earner task of selecting documents for relevance and simply reproducing a list of documents upon direction from another.’

Incoming correspondence

The Judge held that perusal of incoming correspondence was unrecoverable inter partes.

Despite the arguments set out not being particularly novel, the judgment is a welcome refresher of the Court’s approach to a number of issues that are commonly disputed at detailed assessment. It is likely the decision will feature in sets of Points of Dispute and Replies across the country in the coming weeks and months, and is one that both paying and receiving parties should familiarise themselves with.

Ellena Hunter is an Associate in Clarion’s Costs and Litigation Funding Team and can be contacted on 07979 199145 or Ellena.hunter@clarionsolicitors.com