Guideline hourly rates: how courts use them in costs assessment

The guideline hourly rates are published by HM Courts & Tribunals Service following recommendations of the Civil Justice Council. They set rates by grade of fee earner, from Grade A solicitors and legal executives with over eight years’ experience down to trainees and paralegals in Grade D, and by geographical band, including London bands and National bands.

Rates are periodically revised, most recently through inflation-linked updates. Always check the current table on GOV.UK for the period in which the work was done, and note that different rates may apply to different parts of a long-running case.

The rates are designed principally for summary assessment, where a judge assesses costs quickly at the end of a hearing. The guidance itself explains they are a starting point and that higher rates may be appropriate in substantial and complex litigation.

In detailed assessment, judges often use the guideline rates as a reference point too, although the court considers all the circumstances under CPR 44.4, including the importance of the matter, its complexity, the skill and specialised knowledge involved, and the place and circumstances where the work was done.

Courts have accepted rates above the guideline where a case is genuinely complex, high-value or required specialist expertise, but they expect a reasoned explanation rather than reliance on the firm’s standard charging rate alone. Relevant factors may include the novelty of the issues, the volume of documents, international elements, urgency and the seniority of opponents’ representation.

Paying parties commonly argue that a London rate is unjustified for a case that could have been run from a regional firm, or that the work could have been delegated to a lower grade. Both issues are fact-sensitive. A clear narrative in the bill and in any replies to points of dispute helps the court see why the rate claimed is reasonable.

Rates cannot be considered in isolation from time. A high rate with efficient time may produce a reasonable total, while a lower rate with excessive time may not. Courts look at both and at proportionality on the standard basis.

Appropriate delegation is one of the most effective ways to protect recovery. When senior fee earners do routine work, paying parties will argue for it to be allowed at a lower grade. Records that show why seniority was needed help counter that argument.