Protopapas Solicitors (a firm) v John Michaelides & Anor

On a common-law assessment between solicitor and client, the costs of assessment are assessed on the standard basis unless the costs order expressly provides otherwise. The fact that the solicitor beats its own settlement offer does not, without more, justify indemnity costs.

Reasonableness and proportionality must be considered in the usual way, with doubt resolved in favour of the paying client. A Costs Judge assessing solicitor-and-client costs has no general jurisdiction to alter interest awarded by the referring court. The assessment is of the bill delivered, not a larger breakdown prepared to support it.

The claimant solicitors obtained judgment in the County Court for outstanding fees, subject to a common-law assessment by a Costs Judge. The assessment proceedings concerned the reasonableness and proportionality of the solicitors’ costs, the recoverability of VAT and disbursements, the appropriate hourly rates, interest, and the costs of the assessment itself.

The claimant sought indemnity costs because its recovery exceeded its own settlement offer. The defendants challenged that basis, disputed elements of the costs claimed, and argued that interest should be reduced or deferred because of delay and difficulties in quantifying the bills.

1. Basis of assessment. The order for costs made on 23 May 2023 did not specify indemnity costs. Under CPR 44.3(4), it therefore required assessment on the standard basis. Beating a party’s own offer did not justify an indemnity order. The ordinary standard-basis principles applied to the solicitor-and-client assessment, including proportionality and resolution of doubt in favour of the paying clients.
2. Assessment of the claimed work. The court allowed reasonable advocacy and documentary work at different rates, accepted appropriate central London Grade A rates, and disallowed work that was duplicative, unnecessary, inadequately supported, or of no real value, including a poorly organised hearing bundle and attendance by an unnecessary additional fee earner. VAT was recoverable because the claimant could not recover it, subject to the court’s findings on the fee notes.
3. Proportionality. Following West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 1220, proportionality was considered after assessment for reasonableness. The assessed sum of £20,628.40, including VAT on solicitors’ costs, was not disproportionate under CPR 44.3(5). The commercial settlement of the underlying fee claim was irrelevant to quantifying the assessment costs.
4. Interest. The referring order determined the interest provision. The Costs Judge could not alter or interpret it. The limited jurisdiction under CPR 47 to disallow interest for procedural delay did not apply to solicitor-and-client costs, and was not conferred by the referring order. Simcoe v Jacuzzi UK Group plc [2012] EWCA Civ 137 and Involnert Management Inc v Aprilgrange Ltd [2015] EWHC 2834 (Comm) did not justify the defendants’ submissions. Involnert concerned opposing-party costs, and the amount claimed remained the amount billed rather than the larger supporting breakdown.
5. Outcome. The defendants reduced the claimed assessment costs by about 44 per cent. The court awarded the claimant £2,800 inclusive of VAT for additional written submissions caused by the defendants’ approach, bringing the total costs of assessment payable by the defendants to £23,428.40.

The judgment records that HHJ Hellman gave judgment for the claimant in the County Court on 4 January 2021 for outstanding fees, subject to a common-law assessment by a Costs Judge. The Senior Courts Costs Office then assessed the bills and determined the consequential costs issues.