Monthly Costs Law RoundUp | December 2025

Detailed Assessment & Procedure

CPR 47.8 | Master Brown Orders Unless Order For Commencement | CPR 47.7 Held To Be Mandatory (20/12/2025)

Master Brown confirmed that CPR 47.7 imposes a mandatory obligation to commence detailed assessment, not an option. The court held that CPR 47.8 discretion cannot be used to convert an interim payment into a final order, ordering the receiving party to serve a bill by way of an unless order despite an eight-year delay.

CPR PD 47 Para 8.2 | Costs Judge’s “Hands Tied” By Non-Compliant Points Of Dispute (20/12/2025)

Deputy Costs Judge Lightman demonstrated the consequences of Ainsworth-non-compliant points of dispute, allowing items in full where generic objections failed to engage with individual entries. The judge also permitted modest departures from guideline rates and addressed leading counsel instruction where prior involvement existed.

Solicitor Firm Debarred From Detailed Assessment For Failing To Disclose WhatsApp Communications (16/12/2025)

Costs Judge Nagalingam held that WhatsApp communications for which a client has been charged form part of the solicitor’s file for disclosure purposes in Solicitors Act proceedings. The defendant firm was debarred from the detailed assessment for failing to comply with an unless order requiring complete disclosure.

Judicial Review Costs

Costs In Settled Immigration Judicial Reviews | “Will Be Made” Creates A Legal Obligation; “Aims To Issue” Does Not (17/12/2025)

The Court of Appeal distinguished between binding commitments and aspirational targets in SSHD correspondence. Where a letter stated a decision “will be made” by a specified date, breach justified proceedings and costs recovery; an “aims to issue” formulation created no such obligation.

Costs In Discontinued Judicial Review | When A Change Of Government Breaks The Causal Chain (17/12/2025)

The Court of Appeal upheld no order as to costs where a judicial review became academic following a change of government already committed to repealing the challenged legislation. The court found no causal link between proceedings and outcome, precluding costs recovery despite the claimant achieving their substantive objective.

Parties Cannot Be Expected To Second-Guess Their Experts | Planning Inquiry Costs Award Quashed (06/12/2025)

The Court of Appeal quashed a costs award against a council whose expert conceded key points under cross-examination. There is no normal procedural requirement to test expert evidence in advance, and parties cannot be expected to second-guess their experts.

Costs Orders & Discretion

No Order As To Costs Where Neither Party Is The “Successful Party” | Matrix v Musst (07/12/2025)

Sir Clive Freedman held that a money judgment in the claimant’s favour did not make it the successful party where recovery represented less than 5% of the claim and commercially significant claims failed entirely. The paying party test is relevant but not determinative.

Permission To Appeal Costs | When Hopeless Grounds And False Citations Justify A Costs Award Against The Applicant (07/12/2025)

Mr Justice Constable awarded respondent costs at a permission hearing where exceptional circumstances existed, including hopeless grounds, persistent undisciplined submissions, and AI-generated false authorities. A limited civil restraint order was also imposed.

Multi-Party Litigation & Trust Costs

Co-Claimants Pursuing Common Case Face Joint And Several Liability For Adverse Costs (09/12/2025)

Mr Justice Nicklin and Senior Master Cook held that claimants pursuing interconnected claims based on common allegations face joint and several liability for adverse common costs. The court also allowed budget variations for legacy email archive costs as recoverable litigation expenses.

High Court Preserves Indemnity For Unsuccessful But Honest Executor Removal Applicants (17/12/2025)

HHJ Charman confirmed that classification of executor removal proceedings as hostile litigation does not automatically deprive unsuccessful applicants of their trustee indemnity, provided their conduct was honest and reasonable. The claimants could recoup costs paid from the estate.

Part 36

Consent Orders Settling Quantum Constitute ‘Judgment’ For CPR 36.17 Purposes (16/12/2025)

HHJ Freedman held that a consent order requiring payment of an agreed damages sum constitutes a judgment for CPR 36.17 purposes, applying the Vanden Recycling principle that substance prevails over form. Enhanced costs consequences were triggered where the settlement exceeded the claimant’s Part 36 offers.

For comprehensive coverage of all costs law developments, visit the TMC Legal costs law updates archive.

Contact TMC Legal

For expert advice on costs budgeting, detailed assessment representation, or costs negotiation, contact TMC Legal Limited on
01628 526 236 or email office@tmclegal.co.uk.