Daniel Carlos Scenna & Anor v Persons Unknown using the identity “Nancy Chen” & Ors

On summary assessment, the court must adopt a broad-brush approach rather than conduct a line-by-line detailed assessment. Guideline hourly rates are broad approximations and provide only a starting point. Complexity, urgency and an international element may justify rates above the guideline figures, but do not automatically justify classification as London 1 work. On the indemnity basis, proportionality is not relevant and doubts are resolved in favour of the receiving party. The paying party’s own costs may assist the assessment, although they are not determinative.

The court had previously ordered the claimants to pay the seventh and eighth defendants’ costs, with disclosure applications assessed on the indemnity basis and other matters on the standard basis. At a consequentials hearing, the court directed that the costs be summarily assessed. The claimants challenged the hourly rates, alleged duplication and excessive time, and disputed counsel’s fees. The court determined the appropriate sums and the time for payment.

1. Basis of assessment. Under CPR 44.3(1), costs cannot be allowed if unreasonably incurred or unreasonable in amount. On the standard basis, only proportionate costs are allowed and doubt is resolved in favour of the paying party. On the indemnity basis, doubt is resolved in favour of the receiving party and proportionality is not relevant.
2. Summary assessment. Summary assessment requires a broad-brush approach, as explained in Brake v Guy [2022] EWHC 2907 (Ch) and Football Association Premier League v The Lord Chancellor [2021] EWHC 1001 (QB). A line-by-line billing exercise is inappropriate.
3. Rates and duplication. Guideline hourly rates are broad approximations and a starting point only. The work’s complexity, urgency and international character did not make it London 1 work. The court therefore treated London 2 rates as the appropriate starting point. It also found, applying a broad-brush assessment, that some work by different fee earners was not reasonably incurred.
4. Counsel and comparative costs. Counsel’s fees were individually reasonable but high when considered together, given overlap between the applications. The claimants’ own costs were relevant but of limited assistance because the parties’ work was not comparable. Malmsten v Bohinc [2019] EWHC 1386 (Ch) was applied in treating the paying party’s costs as relevant but not determinative.
5. Orders. The seventh defendant’s costs were summarily assessed at £157,000 and the eighth defendant’s costs at £110,000. Under CPR 44.7, payment was ordered within 14 days.