The N260 Schedule of Costs is a key procedural document for summary assessment of costs in UK courts. It is commonly used to advance a claim for costs following hearings where the court is invited to assess the assessment of costs payable summarily rather than directing a detailed assessment. A recent Court of Appeal judgment has clarified the consequences of failing to file an N260, confirming that procedural non-compliance does not, in itself, prevent a successful party from recovering costs.

In Public and Commercial Services Union, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Re Costs of the Appeal) [2025] EWCA Civ 1759, the Appellant argued that the Respondent’s failure to serve a schedule of costs should result in no costs order, or alternatively that the Respondent should bear the costs of any subsequent assessment. The argument arose from an appeal hearing which disposed of the substantive application or matter. The Court rejected these submissions, emphasising that entitlement to costs is distinct from the procedural mechanism by which they are assessed and that the court’s role is to make an order that properly deals with the costs of the case.

The Court of Appeal’s Analysis

The Court of Appeal considered whether the absence of a filed N260 Schedule of Costs could justify denying the Respondent’s costs. The Appellant contended that procedural non-compliance could deprive the successful party of costs or shift the costs of the application and any assessment process onto them, particularly where the matter to which the hearing related had concluded.

The court rejected this argument, noting that in appeals listed for a full day with judgment reserved, it is not uncommon for one or both parties to fail to serve a schedule of costs. While acknowledging that filing a schedule is a procedural requirement, the court confirmed that non-compliance alone is insufficient to deny a costs order. The judgment made clear that the order will deal with costs based on entitlement first, with assessment following, as necessary.

The court also recognised that there may be circumstances, for example, where a child or protected party is involved, or where the hearing disposes of the case entirely, in which the court may take a more interventionist approach. However, none of those factors justified depriving the Respondent of its costs in this case.

The judgment further clarified that parties could protect themselves from the costs of assessment by making appropriate offers as to the sum claimed for costs. Such offers may be considered by the costs judge if shown to be effective, particularly where the paying party shows substantial grounds for disputing the amount sought. This aligns with the standard approach to disputing the sum claimed for costs and managing the costs of a receiving party on assessment.

Implications of Failure to File an N260

From a professional perspective, this judgment reinforces several points for legal practitioners:

• Entitlement to costs is unaffected by failure to file an N260 Schedule of Costs, even where the hearing disposes of the matter.
  • Courts retain discretion to order a detailed assessment where a schedule has not been filed, including in appeals and fast track cases.
  • Procedural non-compliance should not be relied upon as a strategy to avoid substantive cost obligations or the case the order ultimately reflects.
  • Effective offers remain a critical tool where the sum claimed is disputed and where a party shows substantial grounds for disputing liability or quantum.

The decision provides clarity for appellate practitioners and costs specialists dealing with disputes arising from failure to comply with procedural requirements such as the filing of Form N260 within the time fixed by the rules or court direction.

Case Example: PCSU v Secretary of State [2025]

In PCSU v Secretary of State [2025], the Court of Appeal explicitly rejected the argument that the Respondent’s failure to file an N260 should result in the costs of the assessment process being automatically borne by them. The court confirmed that even where an N260 Schedule of Costs is absent, the paying party shows substantial responsibility for meeting the costs of assessment if they are unsuccessful.

The judgment confirms that courts will not treat procedural failure in isolation as determinative of cost entitlement. It also highlights that parties can protect their position by demonstrating substantial grounds for disputing the sum claimed or by making realistic offers capable of being relied upon at assessment. This case therefore serves as an important authority on balancing procedural compliance with substantive justice in costs disputes.

Practical Considerations for Costs Specialists

For costs draftsmen and legal professionals, the key takeaways include:

• Assess procedural compliance, but focus on entitlement: procedural defaults alone rarely prevent recovery.
  • Manage exposure through offers: realistic offers can mitigate risk during summary assessment of costs or detailed assessment.
  • Use the case as precedent: PCSU v Secretary of State provides clear appellate authority on the consequences of failing to file an N260 Schedule of Costs, including where the court directs assessment following an appeal.

Specialist guidance from experienced costs draftsmen, such as Greener Costs, can ensure clients’ positions are fully protected in both summary and detailed assessment processes.

FAQs

Q: Does failure to file an N260 Schedule of Costs prevent a party from recovering costs?
No. The Court of Appeal in PCSU v Secretary of State [2025] confirmed that failure to file an N260 Schedule of Costs does not automatically prevent a party from recovering costs. Entitlement to costs depends on the outcome of the case, not solely on procedural compliance. Where necessary, the court may order the costs to be assessed in detail.

Q: Can the paying party avoid paying the costs of detailed assessment if an N260 was not filed?
No. Even if an N260 Schedule of Costs is not filed, the court may still order a detailed assessment of costs payable. However, the paying party shows substantial benefit in making realistic offers, which may influence who bears the costs of assessment.

Q: What should parties do if an N260 Schedule of Costs was not filed?
If an N260 Schedule of Costs was not filed, the successful party should be prepared for a detailed assessment. Proper documentation, evidence of work undertaken, and realistic offers can mitigate disputes over the costs of a receiving party.

Q: When is filing an N260 Schedule of Costs required?
Filing Form N260 is typically required for summary assessment of costs following hearings or applications. While failure to do so does not prevent recovery, compliance assists the court in dealing with costs efficiently and at proportionate cost.

Q: How does PCSU v Secretary of State [2025] affect cost recovery where an N260 was not filed?
The case confirms that procedural non-compliance, such as failing to file an N260 Schedule of Costs, will not prevent a party from recovering costs. Courts retain discretion to order assessment, and parties may protect themselves by showing substantial grounds for disputing liability or quantum.

How Greener Costs Can Assist

Issues surrounding N260 Schedules of Costs often arise at short notice and in contested procedural contexts. Greener Costs regularly advises on the preparation and review of N260 schedules, assessment strategy, and disputes concerning entitlement and quantum. Our work spans appeals, interim hearings, and assessments where procedural compliance is challenged, ensuring that costs positions are robustly protected and proportionately advanced.