Edwards v Devon & Cornwall Constabulary

The court has a discretion to assess costs summarily where the hearing is short, the sum involved is modest and the costs are manageable. That discretion is not displaced merely because the claim has complications. The assessment must be conducted fairly. Each party must have a proper opportunity to address criticisms of the bill, and the judge must engage with its constituent elements. An arbitrary assessment which may cause substantial injustice should not stand. Where detailed assessment would be disproportionate, the appellate court may substitute a proportionate summary assessment or make directions enabling the parties to agree the costs.

The claimant appealed from a summary assessment of costs made by His Honour Judge Overend in Plymouth County Court after liability and damages had been agreed in a road-traffic claim and counterclaim. The judge allowed the claimant £2,500 including VAT for the claim and £750 including VAT for the counterclaim, set off the figures and ordered payment of £1,750.

The claimant argued that the judge should have ordered detailed assessment and, alternatively, that the summary assessment was procedurally unfair and arbitrary. The respondent accepted that the claimant’s counsel had not been given an adequate opportunity to address criticisms of the bill. The issues were whether summary assessment was within the judge’s discretion and what remedy should follow from the defective assessment.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. By agreement, the court substituted an order that the respondent pay the claimant £4,523.91. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
2. Under CPR rule 44.7, the court could either make a summary assessment or order detailed assessment unless a rule, practice direction or enactment provided otherwise. The applicable practice direction stated that the court should consider summary assessment and made it the general rule after a hearing lasting no more than one day. The choice remained a matter for judicial discretion.
3. The discretion was properly exercised in favour of summary assessment. The hearing was short, the amount involved was small, the complications were manageable and the bills were simple and straightforward.
4. The assessment itself was materially defective. Counsel had not been given an adequate opportunity to answer criticisms of the bill. The judge focused on attendance costs without properly considering the constituent elements, and the allowance of only £627 for the solicitors’ conduct of the proceedings appeared substantially inadequate. That failure might have caused substantial injustice.
5. A detailed assessment was not ordered because it would probably increase costs disproportionately. The parties were invited to agree the costs as if an assessment were being undertaken, failing which the court would carry out its own summary assessment. On the appeal costs, solicitors’ charges were reduced proportionately from £4,235 to £3,000, with no reduction in disbursements and a consequential adjustment to VAT.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2001] EWCA Civ 388. Appeal from the summary assessment of costs by His Honour Judge Overend in Plymouth County Court allowed. The order below was substituted by agreement.