Duncan Lyle & Anor. v Jetson Ralph Bedborough & Anor.

On a detailed assessment on the standard basis, substantial time claimed for document production may be reduced where it is unreasonable between the parties, even though the litigation itself was complex. In the absence of attendance notes, genuine doubt about the work claimed is resolved in favour of the paying party. Assessment should not become an artificial reconstruction of every task: a broad-brush, impressionistic approach may better reflect the uncertainties of conducting litigation. Counsel’s involvement does not remove the need for partner supervision or solicitor review. Recoverability depends on whether the work was reasonably undertaken for the litigation and properly chargeable to the paying party.

The applicants, trustees in bankruptcy, obtained judgment that the respondents had entered into a transaction at an undervalue. The second respondent was ordered to pay the applicants’ costs on the standard basis, subject to exclusions concerning redacted witness statements, an unsuccessful specific-disclosure application and costs arising from an adjournment.

The applicants’ bill totalled £169,532.16. Following an earlier detailed-assessment hearing, the remaining issues concerned document-related time claimed for work in the County Court and High Court, together with a discrete bill-checking item. The court had to determine what time was reasonably recoverable, how evidential uncertainty should be treated, and the appropriate method of assessment.

1. Assessment approach. The court rejected the paying party’s suggestion that recoverable time should be calculated simply by identifying each necessary task and assigning an ideal duration. A broad-brush assessment was appropriate, taking account of the material reviewed, the hearing, the conduct of the case and the ordinary vagaries of litigation.
2. Unreasonable document time. The time claimed for several four- or five-page documents, including an advice note, letter of claim and instructions to counsel, was plainly unreasonable between the parties. The same problem appeared throughout both schedules, with extensive recording of time for limited procedural steps.
3. Uncertainty and supervision. Attendance notes were absent. Any resulting doubt was resolved in favour of the paying party on the standard basis. Counsel’s involvement did not negate the need for partner supervision, since counsel and solicitor provide advice from different perspectives. Nor did counsel’s drafting eliminate the need for solicitor review or preparation of drafts.
4. Non-recoverable work. Time spent reading into the file for the solicitors’ own purposes was not recoverable from the opponent. Junior fee-earner time was assessed with regard to the longer time reasonably expected for that level of experience, but duplication and excessive recording remained disallowable.
5. The court allowed the following hours: first schedule—20 Grade A, 70 Grade C and 20 Grade D; second schedule—14 Grade A, 100 Grade C and 15 Grade D. Of the five hours claimed for bill checking, one hour was allowed. Remaining matters were left for possible resolution by the parties or further court involvement.

Not stated in the judgment.