The Imaging Centre Mobile Limited v Morr & Co LLP

On summary assessment, the court should first determine the reasonable costs of the individual items claimed. It should then stand back and assess whether the resulting total bears a reasonable relationship to the factors in CPR 44.3(5). Proportionality is difficult to assess reliably at the level of individual items and is appropriately considered as an overall assessment, while still taking account of excessive or unnecessary work within particular items.

The parties settled detailed assessment proceedings brought under the Solicitors Act 1974 by consent order dated 7 February 2025. Liability for the main proceedings’ costs rested with the claimant, while the defendant was to pay the claimant’s costs of a special-circumstances application. The parties agreed that the outstanding costs issues would be determined on paper by summary assessment.

The court assessed the claimant’s special-circumstances costs and the defendant’s costs of the detailed assessment proceedings, including the proper treatment of hourly rates, documents, counsel and costs lawyers. The central issue was whether the resulting figure was reasonable and proportionate.

1. The claimant was entitled to bring the proceedings because special circumstances existed. The defendant’s initial opposition, followed by concession before the hearing, did not establish fault by the claimant. The claimant’s costs of the application were allowed at £6,000.

2. The defendant’s costs were assessed summarily. The court reduced excessive or unsupported claims, including time spent on the witness statement and costs schedule, Ms Fisher’s travelling time, additional counsel work, and excessive costs-lawyer time. It allowed 100 hours for the costs lawyers at £195 per hour.

3. For proportionality, the court considered it difficult to assess the proportionality of individual items separately. It therefore first allowed costs considered reasonable and then stood back to determine whether the total bore a reasonable relationship to the six factors in CPR 44.3(5): the sums in issue, non-monetary relief, complexity, additional work caused by the paying party, wider factors, and vulnerability-related work.

4. The resulting total of £64,750 was reasonable and proportionate in light of the eight bills totalling £316,464.42, the two-day hearing and the written reserved judgment. After deducting the £6,000 payable to the claimant, the balance payable to the defendant was £58,750.