Tag: #detailedassessment

An Insight into the Court’s Approach to Disproportionate Costs following a line-by-line assessment

angelanakoLeave a comment

Introduction

The judgment of Costs Judge Nagalingam in XX & Anor v Young & Anor [2025] EWHC 2073 (SCCO), provides a useful breakdown on how a bill might be reduced after a line-by-line assessment to yield a proportionate figure by taking into account the factors in CPR 44.3(5) and the Court of Appeal’s approach in West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 1220.

Background

Costs Judge Nagalingam, undertook a three-day line-by-line assessment of the costs in XX v Young as the Defendant had raised the issue of proportionality. He held that the costs were disproportionate and therefore the bill of costs total was reduced from £517,985.00 to £339,565.16, a reduction of almost 35%. Despite this reduction, the Judge held that the total sum remained disproportionate and subsequently further reduced the bill following the line-by-line assessment.

The Judgment

CPR 44.3(5)

In order to assess proportionality, the Judge relied on several factors outlined in CPR 44.3(5) which states that “Costs incurred are proportionate if they bear a reasonable relationship to:

  • the sums in issue in the proceedings;

In this case the Judge considered the realistic range of possible outcomes in the case to be £149,000 (the settlement sum) to £2.5million (the pleaded sum). The likely value of the claim was determined by considering the accident circumstances, the factor of contributory negligence and the complexity of the case. The Judge concluded that the sums in issue would realistically have been closer to £149,000 than the £2.5million fully pleaded claim.

(c) the complexity of the litigation;

The Judge made clear that whilst the litigation was not complex it was also not straightforward. Liability was in dispute, significant injuries were sustained and the medical complexity created legal complexity in quantifying the general damages and past and future losses. Liability also remained a factor under consideration.

(d) any additional work generated by the conduct of the paying party; and

In this case, the Defendant disputed liability until the joint settlement meeting and did not make a good and early Part 36 offer or protective settlement proposals prior to the joint settlement meeting. Therefore, it was determined that the Claimant could not be criticised for continuing with the litigation.

(f) any additional work undertaken or expense incurred due to the vulnerability of a party or any witness.

The Judge concluded that the receiving party’s solicitors were at times dealing with a vulnerable client due to factors such as injury recovery, isolation, the Claimant’s age and language barriers.

Surveillance / Exaggeration

In West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 1220 (17 July 2019) it was outlined that the factors in CPR 44.3(5) are not an exhaustive list. Surveillance evidence and the Defendant’s attempts to seek findings of misconduct and exaggeration were also considered.

The allegation based on surveillance evidence was that that the Claimant had recovered more than reported to the experts and consequently the claim settled at a sum far less than pleaded. However, the Judge declined to engage in a de facto retroactive trial of exaggeration as an issue and noted that if the Defendant had wished to pursue this factor of exaggeration, then they should not have settled or should have negotiated settlement terms which included a percentage based costs order.

Internal Communications

The Judge referred to West in XX v Young, opining that a line-by-line assessment must be completed first and that “one must be careful not to facilitate a result which would amount to double-counting of deductions”. Therefore, reductions were only applied where it was considered that costs were unreasonably incurred or unreasonable in amount. Although concerns were raised regarding the internal time claimed, this did not mean that internal communications were to be reduced irrespective of the circumstances.

Whilst the costs of internal communications had already been reduced from £27,724.50 plus VAT to £22,946.15 plus VAT following a line-by-line assessment, it was later concluded that the costs for internal communications were to be further reduced to £10,000 plus VAT using a broad-brush approach based on the facts and circumstances in the case. The bill total was therefore reduced to £324,029.77.

Conclusion

Overall, the Judge concluded that the assessed sum was “disproportionate in all the circumstances” through considering the factors within CPR 44.3(5) as well as the points of dispute, replies, skeleton arguments and submissions.

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

Underspend, not good reason to depart from budget, unless phase substantially incomplete

Anna LockyerLeave a comment

The Costs Budget remains essential to costs recovery and monitoring continues to play an all-important role. The courts have previously ruled that an underspend of any phase constitutes a good reason to depart from the budget, however during a recent detailed assessment of costs in Utting v City College Norwich [2020] EWHC B20 (Costs) Master Brown adopted a different approach, agreeing with DJ Lumb in the case of Chapman v Norfolk & Norwich University Hospitals NHSFT [2020], as he commented:

“if an underspend were to be a good reason for departing from a budget it would be liable to substantially undermine the effectiveness of cost budgeting. As the Judge effectively observed, solicitors who had acted efficiently and kept costs within budget would find their costs subject to detailed assessment, whereas less efficient solicitors who exceeded the budget would, absent any other “good reason”, receive the budgeted sum and avoid detailed assessment.”

Consequently, the opportunity to secure a full recovery of budgeted costs (i.e. those estimated costs that have been incurred), is increased if the costs incurred fall within the budget.

Master Brown largely sided with DJ Lumb’s approach in the case of Chapman when he determined that underspending in a phase was not a good reason to depart from the budget. A budgeted phase coming up short is limited to the sum spent because of the indemnity principle, but that does not open it up to scrutiny more generally in the absence of further “good reason”.

Counsel for the Defendant in Utting submitted that if the amount of a phase does not match the budgeted sum then the costs of that phase are subject to detailed assessment including where there has been an underspend. The claim had settled some 20 days before trial following an unsuccessful joint settlement meeting. The bill claimed costs slightly lower than those budgeted but Master Brown deemed all phases to be complete, save for the Trial Preparation phase and Trial phase. For the phases regarded as complete he opined:

“the fact that a party has spent less than its budget for a phase does not mean there is therefore in fact a good or appropriate reason for any further reduction and I was not satisfied that there was any additional “good reason” for any such reduction.”

The Defendant was however given permission to argue “good reason” for departure in the Trial Preparation and Trial phases on the grounds that these phases had not substantially been completed and described this as:

“a clear and obvious distinction between an ‘underspend’ and the situation that arose in respect to the Trial and Trial Preparation phases where plainly there was, at the very least, substantial non-completion”

This was the key difference to the approach taken by DJ Lumb in Chapman. The thrust of the ruling in Chapman seemed to be that once a budget was set, a party could spend a budgeted phase however it chose.

In Utting the Defendant sought to rely on the 2019 ruling in Barts Health NHS Trust v Salmon where not spending the totality of the budgeted figure for a particular phase, by virtue of the indemnity principle itself, did constitute “good reason”. The point of settlement of this case was pre-agreement of joint expert meeting agendas and before any JSM and so unsurprisingly the sums claimed in the Expert and ADR phases were less than the sum which had been budgeted for. Master Brown made reference to the fact he sat as an assessor in Barts Health NHS Trust v Salmon but justified taking a different tack in Utting on the basis that in Barts Health  “the assumptions upon which the budget had been prepared were not fulfilled”.

The approach taken in Barts health essentially incentivised a receiving party to overspend to avoid detailed assessment. DJ Lumb recognised this in Chapman and highlighted how it was problematic. Although Master Brown in Utting agreed with DJ Lumb as to the overall effect of the ruling in Barts Health, Master Brown went on to comment:

“There is however nothing per se unjust if a receiving party were to receive a sum by way of costs which is less than the budgeted sum. This is, of course, to be contrasted with the situation where a phase is not substantially completed, where it would, to my mind, be unjust for a receiving party to receive the full amount of a budgeted sum in circumstances where only a modest amount of the expected work had been done.”

As none of the cases referred to above are binding there remains an absence of clarity surrounding “good reason” to depart from a budget when the receiving party has underspent. The decision in Utting does however seem to have refined the approach in Chapman, causing Barts Health to appear to be more of an anomaly, further highlighting the importance of budgets and budget monitoring.

Anna Lockyer is an Associate in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact her at anna.lockyer@clarionsolicitors.com and 0113 288 5619, or the Clarion Costs Team on 0113 246 0622