N Christodoulides v C Holbech

A request to reopen a provisional costs assessment must identify the items challenged and provide a hearing time estimate. If it does not, the assessment is binding unless exceptional circumstances justify relief. The threshold is high. A litigant in person may receive reasonable procedural assistance, but self-representation does not generally reduce compliance standards. Serious allegations of misconduct do not excuse non-compliance. They reinforce the need for allegations to be clearly and precisely identified so that the opposing party has a fair opportunity to respond.

The applicant sought an oral hearing to revisit the provisional assessment of the second defendant’s costs. The court had previously ordered that the provisional assessment stand as final because the applicant’s letter did not constitute a properly formulated request under CPR 47.15.

The applicant’s subsequent application repeated broad allegations of unfairness, lack of transparency and misconduct, but still did not identify the items to be reviewed or provide a time estimate. The central issue was whether the non-compliance could be excused as an exceptional circumstance.

1. The application was dismissed. The provisional assessment remained final.
2. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 47.15(8), a written request for an oral hearing must identify the item or items in the provisional assessment sought to be reviewed and provide a time estimate. The applicant’s letter and subsequent application did neither adequately. Consequently, r 47.15(7) made the assessment binding unless exceptional circumstances existed.
3. The phrase exceptional circumstances sets a high threshold. Relevant considerations included the wholesale rather than minor nature of the default, its persistence despite the earlier order, the absence of any explanation or attempt to rectify it, and the risk that relief would undermine the purpose of the rule and the overriding objective. The court relied by analogy on PME v The Scout Association [2019] EWHC 3421 (QB) and Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 178.
4. Following Barton v Wright Hassell LLP [2018] UKSC 12, self-representation justified some practical leeway but did not lower the ordinary standard of compliance with rules or orders. The rules governing the request were neither inaccessible nor obscure.
5. The seriousness of the allegations did not provide an excuse for non-compliance. Applying Gentry v Miller [2016] EWCA Civ 141, the point operated in both directions: allegations of serious misconduct had to be clearly and precisely identified to give those accused a fair opportunity to meet them. The proposed request would instead have produced an uncontrolled assessment hearing.
6. A request to assess the first defendant’s costs alongside the second defendant’s costs fell outside the scope of the provisional assessment and could not be considered on the application.

The judgment records a previous order dated 7 May 2024 directing that the provisional assessment stand as final. The present application to revisit that order was dismissed.