Naylor v Monahan & Anor

A summary assessment of costs must engage with the component parts of the bill and the work actually claimed. The judge must then assess whether the resulting total is reasonable and proportionate. The process does not require a detailed, item-by-item explanation or a box-ticking exercise. A broad-brush assessment is permissible where the judge has considered the individual elements sufficiently to identify excessive or unnecessary work. The judge may arrive at an own figure for reasonable and proportionate hours, particularly where the opposing party has identified excessive items and the claim has not answered those criticisms. Robustness and efficiency are important features of summary assessment under the Civil Procedure Rules.

The claimant recovered £3,000 in general damages following an admitted-liability road traffic accident. At Middlesbrough County Court, His Honour Judge Moorhouse summarily assessed the claimant’s costs at £5,024 against a bill totalling £8,614.64. He allowed a Grade C hourly rate and assessed 15 hours for the solicitor’s work.

The claimant sought permission to appeal, arguing that the judge had failed to assess the bill item by item and had failed to consider the work actually done and costs incurred. The central issue was whether the judge’s terse reasoning disclosed a legally permissible summary assessment.

1. Permission to appeal refused. The summary assessment was within the judge’s broad discretion.

2. The court should consider the detailed breakdown of costs and assess the individual items, while also reviewing the resulting total for reasonableness and proportionality. That two-stage methodology was identified in 1-800 Flowers Inc v Phonenames Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 721 and Lownds v Home Office; Practice Note [2002] EWCA Civ 365.

3. The requirement to consider the component parts does not impose a box-ticking obligation. As explained by Black LJ in Katherine Morgan v The Spirit Group Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 88, a broad-brush approach may be used where appropriate, and summary assessment should not become formulaic or disproportionately intricate.

4. The judge below had considered the individual components. The transcript showed that he asked questions about the bill, and the defendants had identified examples supporting the wider criticism that the total hours claimed were excessive. The claimant’s counsel had not attempted to answer that criticism. The judge was therefore entitled to reduce the claimed hours to 15 and adopt the Grade C rate of £146 per hour.

5. The fact that the oral judgment gave limited explanation did not invalidate the assessment. A degree of robustness was permitted and encouraged by the Civil Procedure Rules, particularly at the conclusion of a short trial.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): On appeal from Middlesbrough County Court, permission to appeal against the summary assessment of costs was refused.