Intersar Al-Balhaa & Anor v RMG Residential Management Group Ltd

On summary assessment of costs, hourly rates exceeding guideline rates are not thereby unreasonable or disproportionate. The court must assess the rates and work claimed in the circumstances of the case. Where an appeal has required extensive work to assemble documents, evidence and responses, the time reasonably incurred may properly be allowed. A costs order is a judgment for the purposes of interest, so the rate under the Judgments Act 1838 applies.

The appellants appealed against an order made by Deputy Costs Judge Erwin-Jones. Mr Justice Dove dismissed that appeal at a hearing on 15 November 2023. He then invited written submissions on costs because the appellants had not had a proper opportunity to consider the respondent’s costs schedule, which had been filed shortly before the hearing.

The subsequent judgment determined the disputed hourly rates, time claimed for attendances, interest rate and a conceded item concerning a grade A fee earner attending the hearing.

1. The appeal against the order of Deputy Costs Judge Erwin-Jones had been dismissed. The remaining issue was the amount payable following consideration of the parties’ written costs submissions.

2. The grade B rate claimed was £285 per hour, against a guideline rate of £289. The grade C rate was also £285 per hour, against a guideline rate of £244. Although the grade C rate exceeded the guideline rate, the court could not conclude that either rate was unreasonable or disproportionate. The challenge based on the alleged use of grade D fee earners also failed because none of the identified fee earners was grade D.

3. The time claimed for attendances on the respondent was reasonably incurred. The appeal had continued for a considerable period and required substantial work to provide the court with a complete account of the relevant documents and evidence. That justified more time for responding to queries and allegations than would ordinarily be required.

4. The respondent conceded that fees claimed for a grade A fee earner attending the hearing should be disallowed. This reduced the costs schedule by £1,300.

5. The costs order was a judgment. Accordingly, the interest rate under the Judgments Act 1838 applied, rather than a rate adjusted to current commercial rates.

6. The respondent was awarded costs of £34,355.55, payable by the appellants within 14 days of the decision.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): Appeal against the order of Deputy Costs Judge Erwin-Jones dismissed following the hearing on 15 November 2023. Written submissions on the consequential costs assessment were then considered.