Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation v Sprite Aviation No 6 DAC

Summary assessment of costs is a broad-brush exercise. The court should consider the parties’ competing submissions and the relevant features of the work, but need not conduct an excessively detailed assessment. Where the work reasonably required specialist representation, the court may allow the relevant hourly rates and time claimed while reducing costs for unnecessary duplication or over-resourcing. In this case, the principal reduction was required because only one, junior counsel was necessary for the costs hearing. The costs were assessed at £22,000.

The court had previously declined to answer an ordered preliminary issue. The parties agreed on the consequential matters except costs, and the court directed that costs be reserved to the trial judge. Following a further hearing, the court ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs of that argument. The present judgment concerned the summary assessment of those costs. The defendant claimed £42,267.31, while the claimant argued for an award of approximately £9,540.92, raising objections to hourly rates, staffing, time spent and the instruction of leading and junior counsel.

1. Summary assessment. The court approached the assessment on a broad-brush basis, taking account of all the parties’ submissions and giving due regard to each relevant objection.
2. Hourly rates and fee earners. The specialist nature of the dispute and the comparative rates charged by the parties justified making no very significant reduction on these grounds. The use of higher-rate fee earners was not, in the circumstances, shown to have increased the costs.
3. Time and counsel. The court accepted that the hearing did not require two counsel. A junior counsel alone was sufficient. That was the principal reason for reducing the sum claimed. The other objections did not justify substantial further reductions.
4. Order. The amount payable by the claimant to the defendant for the two hearings was summarily assessed at £22,000.

The judgment records that an earlier judgment, handed down on 13 March 2024, declined to answer the preliminary issue. The parties agreed the consequential matters except costs, which were reserved to the trial judge. After a further hearing, the court ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs of that argument.