XX & Anor v Jordan Young & Anor

On a detailed assessment of costs, recoverability depends on whether work was reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount, and whether it is properly attributable to the bill under assessment. Delegation, case planning, consent forms, legal research and document collation may be recoverable in principle, but only to the extent that the work is substantive, efficient and proportionate. Administrative work is not recoverable. A paying party must identify alleged duplication or excess with sufficient precision and must make a properly articulated alternative case; the court will not construct that case for it. The assessment may adopt a proportionate, broad approach where a line-by-line review would misuse judicial and advocates’ resources.

The judgment arose during the detailed assessment of the Second Claimant’s quantum-only bill of costs arising from a personal injury claim involving three claimants. The court considered general points and standard points concerning communications, internal legal work, document preparation, delegation, duplication, records, expert evidence, counsel’s fees and administrative tasks.

The assessment was conducted partly through broad submissions and a private review of the bundles because the volume of challenged documents made a line-by-line assessment disproportionate. The court determined the recoverability and reasonable allowances for the issues addressed, while directing the parties to recalculate the bill and continue the assessment.

1. Approach to assessment. The court held that the volume and nature of the documents justified a proportionate assessment rather than a line-by-line review. Unchallenged items were excluded from reductions, and care was taken to avoid double reductions where an item fell within more than one objection (paras [36]-[52]).
2. Precision of objections. A general allegation of duplication or excess is insufficient. The paying party must identify the challenged items and, where relying on an alternative case, state the amount proposed to be allowed. The court will not undertake that exercise on the paying party’s behalf (paras [27]-[34]).
3. Recoverability in principle. Delegation, preparation of consent or authority forms, legal research, case or action plans, substantive document collation and consideration of benefits may be recoverable. Their recoverability does not prevent reductions where the time is excessive, administrative, duplicative or inefficient (paras [22], [65]-[71], [83], [87], [90]).
4. Administrative and duplicated work. Time spent on passwords, sharelink work, pagination and purely administrative collation was disallowed or reduced. Perusal of incoming correspondence was not recoverable inter partes. Delegation by a senior fee earner was recoverable in principle, but the use of lower-grade fee earners had to remain expedient and efficient (paras [62]-[72], [85], [87], [98], [100], [102]).
5. Reasonableness and proportionality. The court reduced time where the work duplicated the involvement of the lead fee earner, experts or counsel, or where the amount claimed was unreasonable having regard to the straightforward procedural context, the nature of the quantum dispute and the work actually required. Leading counsel’s involvement in the quantum-only claim was generally not reasonably incurred, although senior junior counsel’s involvement was allowed subject to reductions (paras [53]-[59], [73]-[84], [99]-[101], [112], [123]-[124]).
6. The court allowed 125 Grade A hours, 19.4 Grade B hours and 150 Grade D hours for the assessed document work. It also made the item-specific allowances and disallowances set out in the judgment. The parties were directed to recalculate the bill, agree the running total and liaise about completing the assessment; they were invited to engage in ADR (paras [104]-[127]).