Dr Oluremi Agbaje v The Robert Frew Medical Company Limited & Ors

On a detailed assessment, the court may determine disputed bill items individually by deciding whether work was reasonably incurred and, if so, what amount was reasonable. The parties must incorporate those decisions and any earlier general rulings into an agreed recalculation of the bill. A revised Precedent Q must show which budgeted phases remain over budget. The recalculation must reflect the decisions made in the assessment and must not be used to rephase costs. Proportionality arguments may remain available after recalculation and the court’s ruling on good reason.

The judgment concerned item-by-item objections in a detailed assessment of the defendants’ costs bill. The court considered the disputed items in the context of the electronic bill, the parties’ points of dispute and reply, previous decisions on points of principle, and the receiving party’s substantial bundle.

The court ruled on the challenged items, allowing or disallowing specified time and sums, and directed the parties to produce an agreed recalculated bill and revised Precedent Q before the court determined good reason.

1. Item-by-item assessment. The court determined the challenged items individually. An allowed item reflected a conclusion that the work was reasonably incurred. The court then allowed only the amount considered reasonable, where an assessment of amount was required.
2. Recalculation. The parties were directed to recalculate the bill by applying the item-by-item decisions together with the general decisions already made in the assessment. The recalculated bill was to be agreed and resubmitted for consideration.
3. Precedent Q and rephasing. The receiving party was required to provide a revised Precedent Q identifying the extent to which budgeted phases remained above the amounts allowed under the costs management order. The revised document had to reflect decisions made in the assessment only. It was not an opportunity to rephase costs.
4. Further determination. The court deferred its judgment on good reason until receipt of the revised bill and Precedent Q. The assessment could be completed on the papers, with a short remote hearing if necessary. An in-person hearing could be listed if a party caused delay in the recalculation and was required to explain it.
5. The parties remained at liberty to compromise the costs dispute. If only issues such as interest or the costs of assessment required determination, those matters could be dealt with at a short remote hearing.