Andrew William Warner Wootton & Anor v Tracy Jane Wootton & Ors

On a summary assessment of costs for an urgent injunction application, the court must assess whether the work undertaken, hourly rates and counsel’s fee were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

The urgency, seriousness of the relief sought, documentary material, complexity of the evidence and location of the proceedings may justify experienced solicitors and substantial preparation. London rates are not automatically recoverable: the appropriate rate depends on the nature of the work. The court may decline to investigate wider allegations or disputed matters where doing so would not materially assist the assessment.

The claimants sought an injunction against the second defendants. Following dismissal of the injunction application, the court directed a summary assessment of the second defendants’ costs.

The dispute concerned the appropriate solicitor, rates, hours, counsel’s fee, the conduct of the application, late service of evidence and whether an advance estimate of costs should have been provided. The court assessed the recoverable costs.

1. The second defendants’ costs were summarily assessed at £28,000 including VAT.
2. It was reasonable and proportionate to instruct a London solicitor with experience of urgent High Court injunction applications. The claim had been issued in London and the relief sought would have had significant consequences for the second defendants.
3. A Grade A fee earner was justified because of the urgency and seriousness of the application. The preparation of the evidence, reading of the application and supporting evidence, communications and bundle preparation were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
4. The work did not constitute heavy commercial or corporate work justifying London 1 rates. Reasonable rates were £398 per hour for the Grade A solicitor and £148 per hour for the Grade D solicitor.
5. The second defendants’ conduct was not unreasonable. Late service of evidence was understandable given the short period between service and the hearing. The court declined to infer tactical or non-cooperative conduct.
6. The court declined to make findings about wider disputes concerning the parties’ conduct, land ownership, possession, access, trading or the executors’ conduct. Those matters were for trial and would not materially assist the costs assessment. It also took no account of limited mediation correspondence because no determination of privilege issues was appropriate.
7. The court considered a submission based on Garbutt v Edwards, but concluded that an accurate advance estimate would have been difficult or impossible before the injunction application and supporting evidence were known. Any estimate would not materially have affected the costs ultimately claimed.