30/09/2026
SHOULD “STANDING BACK” WORK BOTH WAYS IN COSTS ASSESSMENT?
A question for fellow costs professionals and litigators.
During a Provisional Assessment, on the Standard Basis, a Judge/Costs Officer can assess the individual items, reduce the Bill, and then consider whether the resulting total remains disproportionate.
Even costs reasonably or necessarily incurred can face further reductions under CPR 44.3.
But what happens when looking at the overall figure prompts the opposite concern? Have the individual reductions, taken together, gone too far?
Should the rules expressly require the court to consider that question too?
The rationale for proportionality is understandable. But there is also a receiving party, whose entitlement to recover costs should be assessed fairly.
A series of individual reductions may each appear justified when viewed in isolation. Seeing their combined effect against the work and demands of the litigation may warrant another look.
Of course, a receiving party can challenge a provisional assessment through an oral hearing. That safeguard already exists, but it involves further time, expense and costs risk.
Would an express overall fairness check before finalisation improve the process?
Any upward adjustment would need reasons, remain within the costs properly claimed and recoverable, and satisfy both reasonableness and proportionality. The parties should have an opportunity to address any proposed revision.
Is there a case for making this safeguard explicit - allowing the Court to revisit reductions where the overall picture reveals that they were too severe? There are time constraint in Judges doing Provisional Assessments, so broad brush frenzies can happen.
Should the rules be amended, or do the existing safeguards already strike the right balance?
