![JBX v Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (Costs) [2026] EWHC 2525 (KB)](https://tmclegal.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/image_3c266abd.webp)
In Prescot Management Company Limited & Anor v Zahid Khan [2026] EWHC 2855 (BP), the High Court summarily assessed indemnity costs without requiring a fee note from counsel or a dated breakdown of attendances. It treated further particularisation of the N260 statement of costs as disproportionate. The decision shows how much detail a receiving party needs to give, and where a paying party’s challenge is more likely to succeed.
Background
The claimants, Prescot Management Company Limited (PMCL) and Mr Karamagias, applied in the High Court for an extended civil restraint order (ECRO) against Mr Khan, who acted in person. Most of Mr Khan’s claims and applications were founded on his continued assertion of a beneficial interest in a flat, despite earlier orders [9].
On 26 October 2026 Mr Justice Twigger gave an extempore judgment making the ECRO and directed written submissions on costs [1]. In his later judgment he held that the claimants, as the successful party, were entitled to their costs under the general rule [19]. He ordered those costs on the indemnity basis because of Mr Khan’s conduct of the application [21], [22]. The claimants filed an N260 claiming £49,076.45 and invited summary assessment [23].
Costs Issues Before the Court
Once the basis of assessment was settled, the court had to decide whether to assess the costs summarily at once or to give further directions, as Mr Khan urged, because of the level of detail in the N260 statement of costs. Within the assessment, the issues were whether to require further particularisation of counsel’s fee, the Grade A attendances, the travel, sustenance and transcript fees and the VAT, and what overall sum to allow.
The Parties’ Positions
The claimants invited the judge to assess the costs summarily on the basis of their N260 [23]. Mr Khan submitted that the N260 was insufficiently particularised to permit summary assessment now, so there should be further directions and either summary assessment at a later date or detailed assessment [23].
Within the figures, Mr Khan pointed out that £10,312.50 claimed at Grade A rate for attendances was not particularised for dates or purposes [28]. He challenged the Grade A rate charged for Mr Champ [27], highlighted the risk of overlap between work on documents and costs allowed in other contexts [29], and invited the judge to step back and consider the reasonableness of the costs overall [32].
The Court’s Decision
The judge dealt first with timing. He said: “I do not consider postponement of an award of costs to be appropriate or cost-effective.” The assessment was best carried out by him while the matter was fresh in his mind, and Mr Khan’s particularisation points would be considered within the summary assessment itself [23]. The objection to detail therefore went to the amount allowed, not to whether the court could assess.
He then set the standard. Costs must be reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount. On the indemnity basis any doubt as to reasonableness is resolved in favour of the receiving party, and there is no requirement to consider proportionality [24]. When later asked to step back, he again noted that proportionality was irrelevant to an assessment on the indemnity basis [32].
Counsel’s fee was £10,000. Based on his experience, the judge found that well within the range of reasonable fees for a hearing lasting a day with a complex background, noting that the order sought was serious and required careful preparation by counsel [25]. He said: “I do not consider it necessary to require a fee note or further particularisation.”
On attendances, the judge recalled that the hearing ran from 10.30 am until after 5.00 pm, so seven hours for the partner and the Grade D fee earner appeared reasonable [26]. He accepted that the £10,312.50 claimed at Grade A rate for attendances was not particularised for dates or purposes, but observed that “it is a feature of the summary assessment procedure that a relatively broad brush is applied” [28].
He did not consider it proportionate to require further particularisation of that figure. Nor did he regard the three hours claimed for each of attendance on opponents and attendance on others as unreasonable in the context of the application [28].
On work on documents, Mr Khan’s concern about overlap did not succeed. Several bundles were necessary, reflecting the different applications and claims in different courts and tribunals, and around £13,000 for documents was perfectly reasonable given the volume of material. The judge had no reason to believe that Mr Champ had double counted any work [29].
Travel, sustenance and transcript fees of £2,699.54 were treated differently. The judge did not consider it proportionate to require any further breakdown, but said the sum appeared on the high side given that Colman Coyle are based in London [30]. Nor did he consider it proportionate to require particularisation of who incurred what item and for whom VAT is irrecoverable, since the way VAT had been charged appeared reasonable [31].
The reductions came from the rate and the overall view. The Grade A rate of £375 was higher than the London 3 guideline, though not especially high for a case of this type [27]. Inserting the guideline rate of £319 into the excel spreadsheet version of the N260 statement of costs reduced the total to £44,466.53, around 90% of the sum claimed [32].
The judge thought that perhaps a little higher than might generally be expected on detailed assessment on the indemnity basis, and noted again that the travel, sustenance and transcript figure seemed a little high [32]. Applying a broad-brush approach, he assessed the costs at £42,000 including VAT [33].
Practical Implications
This is a first instance decision, but it gives a practical measure of the detail needed in an N260 statement of costs on summary assessment. Receiving parties may not need to attach counsel’s fee note or date every attendance where the court can test the figures against its own experience, particularly on the indemnity basis, where doubt is resolved in their favour [24], [25], [28]. Supplying the N260 in spreadsheet form allowed the judge to test the effect of a different hourly rate directly [32].
Paying parties should be cautious about resting a challenge on want of particularisation alone. Mr Khan’s request for further directions and a later or detailed assessment was refused [23], and his particularisation points produced no further breakdown. What moved the figure was the gap between the rate charged and the London 3 guideline, together with an item that looked high on its face [32], [33].
Practitioners opposing a statement of costs should identify the specific rates and items that appear excessive and explain why, for example by reference to the guideline rates or the firm’s location [30]. An allegation of double counting needs material behind it; without it, the court may have no reason to believe the work was duplicated [29]. Receiving parties should equally expect a modest broad-brush discount where the court considers that detailed assessment would produce deductions [32].
▶ Watch the case summary
N260 Statement Of Costs | Form Matters
The Correct Approach To Summary Assessment | Guideline Hourly Rates Up By 35%?
Related service: costs advocacy at detailed assessments and costs hearings.
