COST BITES 283: “A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THE POINTS OF DISPUTE WERE DISMISSED”: NOT ENOUGH DETAIL, FAILING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN STANDARD AND INDEMNITY BASIS COSTS

We are looking at a different aspect of the case we have already looked at this morning. However the paying party in that case to some extent where the authors of their own misfortune. In particular the judge held that the challenges to the bill were not sufficiently particularised. As a result a “significant number” of items in the bill were allowed.  Further the Points of Dispute failed to distinguish between the two basis of costs, part of the costs were to be paid on the indemnity basis and the paying party’s approach had not been helpful.

(“PODs” come in many shapes and sizes. However for costs purposes they have to be properly particularised or else they may be virtually worthless”)

“… a significant number of the Points of Dispute were dismissed. I concluded that, regardless as to whether the items in the bill to which the Point of Dispute in question was directed related to Parts 1 or 2, the purported challenges were insufficiently particularised such that the defendant was unable properly to understand and/or to respond to them. See Ainsworth -v- Stewarts Law LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 178. That meant that a significant number of items in both Parts 1 and 2 of the bill were allowed as claimed.”

KEY PRACTICE POINTS

This part of the case highlights the need for Particulars of Dispute to be properly particularised. The danger with insufficient PODs is that the judge may not take them into account at all and allow the bill, or as here, a “significant” number of items in the bill as claimed.

THE CASE

Stockler & Anor v The Corporation of the Hall of the Arts and Sciences [2025] EWHC 2262 (SCCO), Deputy Costs Judge Joseph.

THE FACTS

The judge was assessing a bill of costs.  Part of the bill (part 1) was to be paid on the standard basis, Part 2 of the bill was to be paid on the indemnity basis.

THE JUDGMENT ON THE INITIAL APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT

10. The matter came before me for that detailed assessment hearing on 23 and 24 June 2025. The claimants were represented by Mr Daniel Laking of Counsel, and the defendants by Mr Paul Hughes of Counsel. Various decisions and rulings on some of the Points of Dispute were made on those two days but it was not possible to complete the detailed assessment. I adjourned the matter part heard and it was listed for a further two days on 28 and 29 August 2025.

11. Some of the issues arising out of the Points of Dispute, and some of the decisions made on the first two days of the detailed assessment, are significant in the context of the issue of proportionality, and, in particular, as to whether there should be any further reduction on that ground for that reason. I mention them now.

12. The claimants had contended that the defendant had not been entitled to instruct a firm of solicitors outside the area in which it was based. I concluded, applying Wraith -v- Sheffield Forgemasters Limited [1998] 1 WLR 132, that it was reasonable for the defendant to have instructed a firm of solicitors in London 2 (as defined in the current Guide to Summary Assessment).

13. The defendant had claimed that the day to day conduct of the matter was suitable for a grade A fee earner. In relation to Part 1 of the Bill, I concluded that a grade B fee earner was reasonable but for Part 2, I allowed a grade A. Some of the Points of Dispute failed to distinguish between items in Parts 1 and 2 with the result that it was difficult to ascertain from those Points of Dispute which items under challenge were to be assessed on the standard basis and which were to be assessed on the indemnity basis. By doing this, the claimants attempted to place the onus of working out which items might relate to Parts 1 and 2 respectively on the defendant and/or the court. This was an approach which I found unhelpful and inexplicable, given the difference in the CPR as to how standard and indemnity basis costs are to be assessed – see below.

14. Ultimately, a significant number of the Points of Dispute were dismissed. I concluded that, regardless as to whether the items in the bill to which the Point of Dispute in question was directed related to Parts 1 or 2, the purported challenges were insufficiently particularised such that the defendant was unable properly to understand and/or to respond to them. See Ainsworth -v- Stewarts Law LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 178. That meant that a significant number of items in both Parts 1 and 2 of the bill were allowed as claimed.