Maggie Otto & Ors v Inner Mongolia Happy Lamb & Ors

The judge conducted a summary assessment of costs arising from an interim injunction application which the petitioners withdrew. The court applied the Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs and refused to allow solicitors' charge rates above the 2021 guideline rates absent a clear and compelling justification, referring to the authorities Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v LG Display Co Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 466 and Athena Capital Services SICAV v Secretariat of State for the Holy See [2022] EWCA Civ 1061. The judge declined to uplift guideline rates to reflect general inflation or remote working without proper evidence. Time spent on correspondence, attendance on counsel and the court was examined and largely allowed as reasonable. The final assessed sum for the petitioners' costs (including VAT and court fees) was £20,795, payable by the respondents within 14 days.

This is a first instance summary assessment of costs following an application by the petitioners dated 18 October 2023 for an interim injunction. The application was first listed on 2 November 2023 and adjourned for further evidence, later listed for 15 November 2023 but withdrawn by the petitioners before that hearing. On 20 November 2023 the judge had already determined that the costs of and occasioned by the application were caused entirely by the represented respondents and should be paid by them (see [2023] EWHC 2920 (Ch)).

The petitioners sought payment of two costs schedules totalling £23,244.20 (including VAT). The respondents challenged both the claimed hourly rates and individual time entries. Key issues framed by the court were:

• whether the hourly rates claimed by the petitioners (grade A £350; grade C £260) should be allowed or reduced to the Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs 2021 guideline rates;
• whether the claimed time for attendance, correspondence and hearings was reasonable and proportionate;
• whether uplift of rates was justified by general inflation or changes in working practices; and
• the period for payment of the assessed costs.

In resolving those issues the judge held that the petitioners had not provided a clear and compelling justification to exceed the guideline hourly rates and declined to uplift rates on the basis of general inflation or remote working without evidential foundation. The judge examined challenged time entries (attendance on opponents, attendance on others and liaison with counsel and the court) and allowed them as reasonable or at the high end but proportionate, and allowed only the attendance of a grade A solicitor at hearing (which had been the only attendance claimed). Counsel's fees were left unchallenged. After deductions for excessive charge rates, the judge assessed solicitors' costs at £6,200 and counsel's fees at £10,900, added VAT of £3,420 and court fees of £275, totaling £20,795. Payment was ordered within 14 days. The judge emphasised that summary assessment is a broad-brush exercise rather than a line-by-line inquiry.

The court assessed and allowed the petitioners' costs of the interim injunction application and ordered the respondents to pay assessed costs of £20,795 within 14 days. Rationale: the costs of and occasioned by the application were caused entirely by the represented respondents; there was insufficient justification to exceed the 2021 guideline hourly rates (Samsung and Athena cited); challenged time entries were in the main reasonable and proportionate; counsel's fees were allowed unchallenged.