A recent judgment in Personal Representatives of the Estate of Maurice Hutson (Deceased) & Ors v Tata Steel UK Ltd has provided essential guidance on preliminary costs and several key cost-related issues arising from the British Steel Coke Oven Workers Litigation, a long-running group action involving more than 200 former workers and the estates of deceased employees. Although the substantive claims concluded in 2024 with an aggregate settlement of around £3.5 million, the matter of costs remains highly contentious.

As is often seen in complex and large-scale group litigation, the conclusion of the damages phase has not resolved every financial aspect. The focus has now turned to the recovery of costs, which both sides continue to dispute vigorously. Given the size and duration of litigation, the sums in question are substantial, and there are sharply differing positions on how costs incurred over more than a decade should be categorised and assessed.

This case centres on sample assessments of 20 individual claimants’ costs, with the court asked to resolve four significant issues of principle:

1. Hourly rates
2. Recoverability of co-worker evidence
3. Recoverability of probate costs
4. Recoverability of “Mail Merge” items

Further line-by-line assessments of four individual bills are expected to follow, providing additional guidance on preliminary costs in similar disputes.

Assessing the Fairness of Hourly Rates

Both claimant firms, Hugh James and Irwin Mitchell, claimed hourly rates aligned with the 2021 Guideline Hourly Rates (GHR), even though the litigation spanned from 2021 to 2024, a period during which the 2010 GHRs applied for a substantial portion. The defendant argued that the 2021 GHR should serve as a ceiling, referencing the overall settlement value and the streamlined nature of the post-2022 scheme.

However, the court sided with the claimants, accepting that the complexity of the work justified higher rates. Evidence gathered from multiple sites, the long-tail nature of industrial disease claims, and the defendant’s requirement for each claimant to prove duty, breach, and causation reinforced the specialist nature of the litigation.

Ultimately, the court ruled that hourly rates akin to the 2021 guidelines were reasonable and recoverable throughout the entire course of the litigation. This included earlier work before 2021, with no distinction made between common and individual costs, a position that strengthens ongoing guidance on preliminary costs across similar cases.

Determining the Value of Co-Working Testimony

One of the main disputes resolved around whether the costs of obtaining co-worker statements should be categorised as common or individual costs. The defendant initially contended that this evidence served a collective purpose, falling under the umbrella of common costs.

However, the court recognised that many claimants were deceased, and co-worker statements were crucial in proving each individual’s exposure. Even when evidence overlapped, its primary use was to establish individual liability. Therefore, it was ruled recoverable as individual costs. This clarification provides practical guidance on preliminary costs where overlapping but individualised evidence plays a key role.

Clarifying the Treatment of Probate-Related Expenses

The defendant relied on Mosson v Spousal (London) Ltd [2016] to argue that probate costs were not recoverable. The court distinguished between probate costs incurred as part of administrative estate management and those obtained solely for the purpose of litigation.

It held that when a grant was obtained exclusively to enable proceedings, the reasonable costs of doing so could be recovered. However, if probate was required for general estate administration, only the cost of a copy could be claimed. The judgment confirmed that the evidential bar for establishing litigation-only probate was “not particularly high.”

This decision reinforces clarity in understanding preliminaries and how probate-related expenses can form part of recoverable project preliminaries when they are necessary for litigation purposes rather than general estate management.

Evaluating the Role of Automated Correspondence

Finally, the defendant challenges “Mail Merge” entries made by Hugh James, arguing they represented bulk communications and should be treated as common costs. The defendant also claimed that because these letters were automated, charging them as individual communications was unreasonable.

However, the claimants had utilised an automated template that was then tailored individually for each claimant. The firm also limited each entry to a two-minute time allocation, rather than the usual six. The court found this approach pragmatic, recognising that the process involved bespoke work and went beyond simple automation. The two-minute cap was upheld as reasonable, providing further guidance on preliminary costs related to efficient correspondence management in large-scale claims.

Implications for Future Cost Assessments

This judgment provides transparency for practitioners dealing with cost recovery in group industrial disease litigation. It underscores the court’s willingness to allow 2021 GHR rates where work remains specialist and complex, even within streamlined schemes. It also distinguishes between common and individual costs where evidence serves both shared and individual functions.

The decision clarifies the distinction between administrative and litigation-related probate costs and demonstrates a practical approach to assessing time and efficiency in automated correspondence. With more detailed assessments set to follow, the ruling is expected to influence the treatment of costs across future group actions, offering valuable guidance on preliminary costs and preliminaries in construction contracts for cost professionals, analysing how courts interpret and apply cost principles.

How Greener Costs Supports Clients in Managing Legal Costs

Greener Costs is an experienced and independent team of specialist Costs Draftsmen and Costs Lawyers. We work with both paying and receiving parties to achieve fair and proportionate cost recovery. Our team is skilled in preparing Cost Budgets and Bills of Costs, as well as providing detailed cost estimating, negotiations, and strategic advice for complex disputes.

At Greener Costs, we:

• Prepare and challenge costs budgets in large-scale litigation and construction project environments, ensuring all figures are realistic, evidence-based, and defensible.
• Represent clients at CCMCs, detailed assessment, and appeals, offering clear advice on proportionality and reasonableness.
• Audit internal processes to ensure administrative costs, time entries, and attendance records are robust and transparent.
• Provide guidance on preliminary costs and how contract preliminaries, site-based services, temporary works, site offices, provisional sums, and welfare facilities factor into the overall project cost and ongoing costs.
• Support settlement discussions through precise analysis of what costs include and how they are likely to be treated under judicial scrutiny.

Whether you are a paying or receiving party, Greener Costs offers practical, specialist assistance in budgeting, assessment, and cost recovery. Our expertise helps clients control exposure, strengthen documentation such as health and safety files, and ensure smooth financial management from start to completion.

Contact Us Today

If you would like to discuss how Greener Costs can assist with cost budgeting, detailed assessment, or any aspect of preliminary costs, our team would be pleased to help. You can reach us by calling 01204 263047 or by emailing info@greenercosts.co.uk, and a member of our specialist costs team will respond promptly. We look forward to supporting you with clear, practical, and expert advice tailored to your case.