£115,051 Bill of Costs reduced to £57,500 before detailed assessment

Costs Lawyer by ARC Costs acted for the paying party after a Central London dispute had reached trial. The claimant recovered damages of £17,914.20, but the receiving party then served a Bill of Costs totalling £115,051. Our client needed to understand which charges could properly be challenged and how best to limit their exposure.

The difference between the damages and the costs claim called for careful scrutiny. Costs can exceed damages in complex or heavily contested litigation, so comparing the two figures is not, by itself, enough to establish that a bill is excessive. The work undertaken and the circumstances of the proceedings also matter. We reviewed the bill with that wider context in mind, rather than treating its headline value as the whole argument.

Our analysis identified three principal areas of concern: the overall proportionality of the costs, the format of the bill and the amount of fee earner time claimed. Each needed to be considered against the papers and the procedural position in this particular matter.

Although the case had proceeded on the multi-track, the receiving party had used a traditional three-column Bill of Costs rather than the electronic Precedent S format. In light of the requirements applicable to this case, we considered that a significant procedural point to raise. This was a case-specific objection, not an assertion that every multi-track bill must always take the same format.

We also identified substantial time claims that, in our assessment, were difficult to justify by reference to the work undertaken. Reviewing the bill as a whole helped us identify patterns of excessive time recording, rather than relying only on scattered objections to individual entries. That analysis gave the challenge a clearer structure and a firmer basis for negotiation.

Costs Lawyer by ARC Costs prepared comprehensive Points of Dispute addressing both the overall claim and specific items in the bill. The receiving party served Replies but maintained much of its position. Negotiations initially failed to bring the claim below £85,000, leaving a substantial gap between the parties.

A full-day detailed assessment hearing was listed before the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO). We continued preparing on the assumption that the hearing would take place, analysing the disputed costs and developing the paying party’s position. Preparation and negotiation ran alongside one another: the possibility of settlement did not remove the need to be ready for assessment.

As the listed hearing approached, further negotiations produced an agreement. The receiving party accepted £57,500 inclusive, bringing the matter to an end without a contested detailed assessment hearing. Against the original £115,051 bill, that represented a reduction of approximately 50%.

The terms were important as well as the headline figure. The receiving party abandoned its claim for the costs of the detailed assessment proceedings and for interest. Our client therefore did not face those additional amounts on top of the agreed settlement. Resolving the dispute before the hearing also avoided the further time, expense and uncertainty of a full day before the SCCO.

This was a negotiated outcome, not a judicial finding that every objection was established. The result shows the commercial value of a well-prepared challenge without suggesting that the court ruled on the disputed bill format, proportionality or individual time entries.

A served Bill of Costs deserves a proper review, even where the receiving party has succeeded at trial. The entitlement to recover costs and the amount that is reasonably recoverable are separate issues. Procedural requirements, the context of the litigation and the evidence supporting time claims can all affect the strength of a paying party’s position.

This matter also demonstrates why effective costs disputes are not measured only by what happens at a hearing. Detailed analysis, focused Points of Dispute and sustained preparation can support a sensible settlement. Here, they helped our client substantially reduce its exposure and conclude the dispute before the court needed to determine the amount payable.

Costs Lawyer by ARC Costs advises paying parties on substantial and complex Bills of Costs, from initial review through negotiation and detailed assessment proceedings. Our approach combines technical scrutiny with the practical question of whether the terms available are commercially worthwhile for the client.