At Greener Costs, we specialise in advising on the assessment of costs and guiding clients through every stage of the costs recovery process. One of the clearest examples of how Courts deal with unreasonable billing practices in relation to a detailed assessment of solicitors’ costs is found in Ikin v Shawbrook Bank Ltd [2023] EWCH 1075. This case highlights the court’s firm approach to inflated legal fees and its willingness to penalise solicitors for a lack of transparency and accuracy in billing.

Background to the Case

The case involved a dispute over legal costs incurred by the claimant’s solicitors, which were subject to detailed assessments following a contested claim. During proceedings, the solicitors submitted a bill of costs that included numerous inaccuracies, vague time entries, and charges that were not properly recorded or justified. The Court took particular issue with the way the solicitors had recorded time spent on the file, suggesting that some of the claimed time had not actually been worked.

The Receiving Party claimed over £70,000 in costs. However, upon review, the court found that this figure was grossly exaggerated. Costs Judge Gordon-Saker ultimately disallowed around 40% of the amount of costs claimed, significantly reducing the overall total due to a breach of professional obligations.

The Court’s Findings

Costs Judge Gordon-Saker found that the solicitors’ records were lacking in clarity, failed to provide adequate justification for many of the time entries, and appeared to be constructed retrospectively. The judgment referenced CPR 44.11, which permits the court to impose penalties for improper or unreasonable conduct in the course of costs proceedings.

The court also criticised the solicitors’ failure to provide contemporaneous records, making it impossible to verify whether the work had been done as claimed. The inference drawn was that time has been recorded after the fact, and in some instances, was not time spent on the matter at all.

This judgment reiterates that solicitors have a professional duty to ensure that their bills are accurate, justified, and supported by evidence. Failure to meet these standards may lead to a significant reduction in costs recoverable and may also attract cost penalties.

Summary Assessment vs. Detailed Assessment

This case demonstrates the importance of preparing a bill thoroughly, regardless of whether a summary assessment or a detailed assessment is being sought. In lower-value claims, the court may conduct a summary assessment immediately following the hearing. However, in cases like Ikin, where the amount of costs is significant and disputed, a detailed assessment of solicitors’ costs is the appropriate forum.

In a detailed assessment, the bill must be itemised and broken down by task, with clear time records and supporting evidence. The Receiving Party must also serve a notice of commencement and allow the Paying Party 21 days to respond with points of dispute.

Default Costs Certificate: A Missed Opportunity

Interestingly, had the Paying Party failed to file points of dispute within 21 days, the Receiving Party could have applied for a default costs certificate, allowing the court to award the total amount claimed in the bill of costs. However, this route is only available where the Receiving Party complies fully within the procedural requirements, and their bill is not defective.

In Ikin, the Receiving part’s bill of costs did not stand the test of scrutiny, so even if a default costs certificate had been sought, it’s unlikely it would have been granted without objection. This serves as a reminder that accuracy and transparency are essential from the outset.

The Roles of Points of Dispute

Points of Dispute play a crucial role in the detailed assessment process. They provide the Paying Party an opportunity to challenge specific items in the bill of costs, such as excessive time entries, disproportionate hourly rates, or disbursements that are not recoverable.

In this case, the Paying Party filed robust points of dispute, drawing attention to the vague and retrospective nature of the time records. The court agreed that the bill was unreasonably high and took a strong stance in disallowing inflated costs.

Key Takeaways for Practitioners – Detailed Assessment of Solicitors’ Costs

1. Accuracy Matters: Solicitors must ensure that time is recorded contemporaneously and that bills are fully supported by proper documentation.
2. Professional Standards Apply: Billing practices are subject to scrutiny, and inflated claims can result in a reduction of recoverable costs or even sanctions under CPR 44.11.
3. Understand the Process: Whether seeking a summary assessment or proceeding to a detailed assessment, the procedural rules must be followed carefully.
4. Don’t Miss Deadlines: The paying party must serve points of dispute within 21 days of receiving the notice of commencement. Otherwise, the receiving party may be entitled to a default costs certificate.
5. Use Expert Help: Engaging an experienced costs draftsman or costs lawyer can help ensure your bill of costs is accurate and compliant, significantly improving your chances of recovering costs.

How Greener Costs Can Assist

At Greener Costs, our expert team of costs lawyers and draftsmen specialise in all aspects of legal costs. Whether you’re the Paying or Receiving party, we can support you with:

• Preparing a compliant and accurate bill of costs
• Drafting and responding to points of dispute
• Representation at detailed assessment hearings, including any detailed assessment of solicitors’ costs
• Advising on potential applications for a default costs certificate
• Ensuring all documents are prepared within the 21-day time limits.

If you’ve received a solicitor’s bill or are preparing one, don’t leave your case to chance. Our team will provide clear, strategic advice to help navigate the assessment process effectively.

To find out more, contact us on 01204 263047 or email info@greenercosts.co.uk. Alternatively, submit an enquiry via our website and one of our specialists will get in touch.