T v T

On a summary assessment of costs, the paying party should be ordered to pay only costs that were proportionately and reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount. The court should consider the nature and importance of the dispute, the conduct of the parties, the work reasonably required, the complexity of the issues, the time spent and the level of fee earner reasonably necessary. In a straightforward, short application, the general rule favouring summary assessment should normally apply unless substantial grounds for disputing the costs require detailed assessment. The court may reduce costs to reflect work, seniority or advice that was excessive in relation to the issue.

The applicant father applied for permission to take the parties’ ten-year-old son to the USA for Easter. The respondent mother opposed the application. The dispute was resolved at the hearing when the father gave an undertaking concerning the number of trips to the USA in 2004.

By an earlier judgment dated 11 May 2004, the court ordered the mother to pay one half of the father’s costs, then estimated at £5,000. The court was required to determine the amount payable after the father submitted a statement of costs totalling £8,481 and the mother challenged the figure as exceptionally high and disproportionate.

1. Summary assessment. The court assessed the costs itself. The application was straightforward, concerned a short issue involving the interpretation of an order, and had been dealt with at a hearing lasting no more than one day. The general rule favouring summary assessment therefore applied. A detailed assessment or lengthy further submissions would create additional expense without improving the fairness of the decision.
2. Applicable criteria. Applying paragraph 13.2 of the Practice Direction About Costs to Parts 43–48 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, the court considered whether there was good reason not to assess summarily. Under rule 44.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, it considered all the circumstances, including the parties’ conduct, attempts to resolve the dispute, the importance and value of the matter, complexity, skill and responsibility, time spent and the circumstances in which the work was done. The court also considered paragraphs 11.1–11.11 of the Practice Direction About Costs.
3. Proportionality and reasonableness. The relevant question was not whether the solicitors had performed the work claimed, but the extent to which it was reasonable and proportionate for the mother to pay for it. The court allowed for careful consideration of the correspondence, preparation of the application and attendance at the hearing with counsel. It nevertheless found that two senior fee earners, extensive work with the applicant, a written advice from counsel and the claimed level of preparation exceeded what the short and uncomplicated dispute required.
4. The reasonable total costs payable by the mother were assessed at £5,000. In accordance with the earlier order that she pay one half, she was ordered to contribute £2,500.