AB & Anor, R (on the application of) v Huddersfield Magistrates' Court

On summary assessment, recoverable costs must be reasonable and proportionate to the importance and circumstances of the case. Work undertaken by a solicitor claimant’s own firm may be recoverable where the objection is unsupported. Excessive time, work that could reasonably have been delegated, unexplained items and ordinary overheads such as photocopying are not generally recoverable. Exceptional photocopying may justify a limited allowance. Costs attributable to a distinct unsuccessful interim application are excluded where a separate costs order governed that application.

The claimants had succeeded in the judicial review proceedings. On 10 April 2014 the court ordered the defendants to pay their costs, subject to summary assessment if not agreed. Agreement was not reached, and the court received written submissions on three heads of claim: solicitors’ costs, the claimants’ own costs, and counsel’s fees.

The defendants challenged, among other matters, costs incurred by the firm of which the claimants were members, costs relating to an unsuccessful interim injunction application, excessive time, work undertaken by a Grade A fee earner that could have been delegated, photocopying charges, and an unexplained item. The issue was the amount properly recoverable on summary assessment.

1. Costs incurred by the claimants’ own firm. The objection in principle was rejected. Costs could be awarded for work carried out by the firm of which the individual claimants were members, applying Malkinson v Trim [2003] 1 WLR 463.
2. Separate interim application. Costs attributable to the unsuccessful application for an interim injunction before Haddon-Cave J were excluded. A separate order had required the claimants to pay the second defendant’s costs of that application, and the later general costs order did not displace that order.
3. Reasonableness and delegation. The court reduced time claimed where periods appeared excessive or unjustified. It also reduced the claim where tasks, including bundle preparation, could reasonably have been undertaken by a more junior fee earner. The adjustment was made by reducing hours rather than altering the reasonable Grade A hourly rate.
4. Disbursements and unexplained items. Photocopying was ordinarily an overhead and not separately chargeable, but the exceptional volume claimed justified an allowance of £100 plus VAT. An unexplained item of £3,784.60 was disallowed because no justification had been provided.
5. Counsel’s fees and proportionality. Specialist leading and junior counsel were reasonably instructed given the seriousness and importance of the case. Nevertheless, excessive claims for the interim hearing, the substantive hearing and post-judgment work were reduced. Standing back, the court considered the resulting total high but not disproportionate. Costs were summarily assessed at £63,508.17.

The judgment records that the claimants had obtained judgment in their favour on 10 April 2014, with costs payable subject to agreement or summary assessment. This judgment determined the assessment after the parties failed to agree.