Mew v The General Dental Council [2026] EWHC 1116 (Admin) is a High Court decision that offers a useful, current data point on a question costs practitioners encounter regularly: at what point does a hearing become too long, or too complex, for its costs to be dealt with by summary assessment rather than sent to detailed assessment?

Background to the Case

Dr Michael Mew, a specialist orthodontist, appealed to the High Court under section 29 of the Dentists Act 1984 against a decision of the General Dental Council’s Professional Conduct Committee, which in November 2024 found his fitness to practise impaired by reason of misconduct and erased his name from the Dentists’ Register. The underlying disciplinary proceedings had themselves run to 46 days of hearings over a two-year period, but the appeal itself was heard over three days in January 2026, with further written submissions following in the months after. Charles Bagot KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dismissed the appeal in full, upholding the Professional Conduct Committee’s findings and the sanction of erasure.

The Costs Question

Following the substantive judgment, the court turned to the question of costs. The appeal hearing had run to three days, but the court proceeded to summarily assess the General Dental Council’s costs at £75,000 rather than directing that the costs be sent for detailed assessment.

No Presumption Against Summary Assessment After Multi-Day Hearings

The significance of this outcome lies in what it confirms about the court’s approach to CPR PD 44, paragraph 9.1, which states:

“Whenever a court makes an order about costs which does not provide only for fixed costs to be paid the court should consider whether to make a summary assessment of costs.”

Paragraph 9.2 then sets out the general rule that summary assessment should take place at the conclusion of a hearing lasting no more than one day, subject to good reason not to do so. It does not create a prohibition on summary assessment after a longer hearing. Mew confirms that the court retains a discretion to summarily assess costs following a multi-day hearing and that there is no presumption against doing so.

Mew v The General Dental Council therefore confirms that the one-day provision is a general rule rather than a fixed rule excluding summary assessment after a longer hearing. The court found no presumption against summary assessment simply because a hearing extended over multiple days, and considered that the overriding objective favoured resolving the costs issue summarily where it could be done fairly and proportionately.

Why This Matters for Practitioners

For costs lawyers and costs draftsmen, this decision is a reminder not to assume that a lengthy or evidentially complex hearing will automatically be routed to detailed assessment.

Where summary assessment is being considered after a multi-day hearing, the case illustrates the importance of giving the court sufficiently detailed costs material to enable it to deal with the issues fairly and proportionately. In Mew, the judge had the benefit of the parties’ written submissions and a detailed costs schedule, and was able to resolve the objections on paper without the additional costs and delay of a further hearing or detailed assessment. Equally, a paying party should not assume that simply pointing to the length of a hearing will be sufficient, on its own, to resist summary assessment and secure detailed assessment instead.

Speak to Greener Costs Today

If you need advice on whether a matter is likely to proceed to summary or detailed assessment, or support preparing a schedule of costs, contact Greener Costs’ costs lawyer and costs draftsmen on 01204 263047 or info@greenercosts.co.uk.