Interpreter's Fee Of £924 Deemed Recoverable Under The RTA Protocol But Disproportionate To £20,000 Settlement | Reduced To £794.40

SANTIAGO V MOTOR INSURANCE BUREAU [2025] EWCC H25YJ270

Following a round trip via the Court of Appeal, Judge Dight DBE has assessed the recoverability and quantum of an interpreter’s fee in a road traffic accident claim brought by a Brazilian national, Raphael De Lima Santiago, against the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB). The MIB had challenged both the principle of recovery and the quantum of the £924 fee charged by the solicitor’s associated interpreter services company. The Court of Appeal had found that an interpreter’s fee could be recoverable as a disbursement under CPR 45.29I(h) where it was essential for the claimant’s access to justice, but remitted the case to the county court for determination in the instant case. Upon remittance, the court rejected the MIB’s arguments that the fee should be assessed at nil due to a lack of transparency regarding its components, holding that the fee was a legitimate disbursement. However, in assessing reasonableness, he considered market rates for similar services and ultimately reduced the fee from £924 to £794.40, finding this figure to be more proportionate to the £20,000 claim value, while remaining within the competitive market range for interpreter services.

“In all the circumstances it seems to me that because the Interpreter’s Fee is at the high end of the range described by Mr Ryder I should trim it slightly to arrive at the reasonable figure. I also bear in mind in considering proportionality that a figure of £924 is slightly high when compared to a claim worth only £20,000. In all the circumstances I assess the Interpreter’s Fee at the mean figure derived from Mr Ryder’s quotations, namely £662 (and VAT), a total of £794.40.”

Citations

Cham (A Child) v Aldred [2019] EWCA Civ 1780 Disbursements under CPR 45.29I(h) had to be reasonably incurred due to a feature of the dispute rather than a characteristic of the claimant or witness. Crane v Canons Leisure Centre [2007] EWCA Civ 1352 Solicitors were only entitled to recover disbursements at cost and could not include a profit margin or uplift. Agassi v Robinson [2006] 1 All ER 900 Charges for services that were necessary for litigation but constituted solicitors’ work could not be classed as disbursements. Herbert v H H Law Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 527 To qualify as a disbursement, a fee must be separately incurred and not form part of the solicitor’s overheads or profit costs. Callery v Gray [2002] UKHL 28 In assessing reasonable costs, the court had to focus on prevailing market rates rather than internal costs or target profits of service providers. Northampton General NHS Trust v Hoskin (Manchester County Court, 22 May 2023) A disbursement had to relate to an individual providing a service rather than a corporate entity acting as an intermediary. Aminu-Ede v Esure Insurance Company (Central London County Court, 8 August 2024) The court required sufficient transparency in cost assessments to ensure that claimants did not inflate disbursements through associated entities.

Track allocation housing disrepair CPR 46.13 settlement sum costs restriction SCCO

MRO fee markup cap 25% detailed assessment personal injury Senior Courts Costs Office

Security for costs refused CPR 25.27 very high probability success excessive estimate King's Bench

IPEC scale costs transfer Patents Court PD 30 para 9.2 costs caps Court of Appeal

Costs budget variation CPR 3.15A promptness significant development unfair prejudice Chancery Division

Costs budgeting inter partes proportionality high hourly rates AI disclosure Patents Court CPR 3E

Beneficiary personal liability section 71(3) Solicitors Act 1974 indemnity costs VAT self-supply SCCO

Summary assessment indemnity costs unless order payment on account disclosure default Chancery Division

Provisional assessment set aside CPR 3.1(7) points of dispute filing duty PD 47 para 14.3 SCCO

Fixed recoverable costs police claims CPR 26.9(10)(e) intentional tort exemption

Key Points

A disbursement is an expense that is not part of a solicitor’s profit costs, and it must be charged at cost without any uplift for profit or success fee. The distinction between a disbursement and profit costs depends on whether the work involves solicitors’ responsibilities or is an external expense necessary for litigation. [27-29]
The court must assess costs on the standard basis by considering both proportionality and reasonableness, resolving any doubt in favour of the paying party. The assessment requires a balance between ensuring a reasonable cost for necessary services and preventing excessive or unjustified charges. [36]
In determining whether a charge is reasonable, the court must consider market rates for similar services and should not simply accept the highest fee available. Fee levels should be reasonable in comparison to market norms and ought to reflect competitive pricing. [38-39]

Where a third-party service provider is engaged, the full charge may be recoverable as a disbursement, even if the provider makes a profit. The fact that an interpreter or expert service is obtained through a commercial provider rather than directly from an individual does not, in itself, render part of the fee unrecoverable. [31-34]
The proportionality of a disbursement must be judged in the context of the claim’s overall value. Even where an expense is necessary, the court retains discretion to reduce it if it is disproportionately high when compared to the amount in dispute. [45-47]

"Stuart-Smith LJ rejected the defendant’s submission that the question of an interpreter’s fees does not involve a question of access to justice holding that “without the services of the interpreter the claimant…who cannot speak or understand English is precluded from having access to the court that will permit them to participate fully on an equal footing and to give their best evidence.” [para 59]

Key Findings In The Case

The court found that the Interpreter’s Fee of £924 was a disbursement properly recoverable from the defendant, as it was an externally provided service necessary for the claimant’s participation in proceedings, rather than a solicitor’s profit cost. Consequently, the sum was not subject to any additional profit or success fee. [27-29]
The claimant’s solicitors obtained interpretation services from a related entity, Professional and Legal Services Ltd, which was part of the same corporate group. The court held that the connection between the two entities did not disqualify the cost as a disbursement, provided it reflected a reasonable market rate. [31-34]
The absence of a cost breakdown showing what was paid to the interpreter versus any retained margin did not justify rejecting the entire fee. The court declined to assess the fee at nil and instead focused on whether the total sum was reasonable by reference to market rates. [35]

The court determined that the sum of £924 was at the upper end of reasonable market rates for similar interpretation services. Given the total claim value of £20,000, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the claim to £662 plus VAT (£794.40) to ensure proportionality. [45-47]
The defendant’s argument that the claimant’s solicitors should have sourced an interpreter directly via the National Register of Public Service Interpreters for £300 was rejected. The use of a commercial service provider was not inherently unreasonable, provided the fee charged was proportionate and fell within a competitive market range. [42-44]

“The Court in Cham may have concluded that an opinion of counsel was not required in order for the child to have access to the Court to resolve their claim. That, in my judgment, is not a conclusion that is open to us in the present case when considering the interpreter’s fee.” [para 63]

This case involved a determination regarding the quantum of a specific disbursement in the claim between Raphael De Lima Santiago (the Claimant) and the Motor Insurance Bureau (the Defendant). The procedural journey began when the Claimant, a Brazilian national whose first language is Portuguese, was involved in a road traffic accident on 22 May 2018 while working as a delivery driver in London. The accident, involving a Honda motorcycle driven by him and a scooter driven by Mr Joshua Odubolo, led to the motorcycle being deemed uneconomical to repair. Subsequently, the Claimant’s legal action included a claim for the cost of hiring a replacement motorcycle, amounting to over £46,000. The claim was initiated through the Road Traffic Accident (RTA) Protocol and filed at the County Court Money Claims Centre on 17 May 2021, a day before the expiration of the limitation period. Mr Odubolo did not mount a defense, leading to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) being involved as a second defendant due to uncertainties regarding Mr Odubolo’s insurance status. The claim proceeded to trial at the County Court after being allocated to the Fast Track. The Claimant’s witness statement, originally in Portuguese, was translated into English by Bond Turner Solicitors, who also booked an independent interpreter for trial compliance. This direction was necessitated by the court’s conditions, precluding the use of internal translators from the Claimant’s solicitors at trial. On the day of trial, 11 August 2022, the case settled, with the MIB agreeing to pay £20,000 and the Claimant’s costs summarily assessed at £13,746.03. However, the Deputy District Judge Sneddon excluded the Interpreter’s Fee, citing CPR 45.29I(h) and relying on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Cham (A Child) v Aldred. Permission to appeal was granted, leading the matter to the Court of Appeal, which focused on the interpreter’s fee recoverability as a necessary disbursement due to the access to justice principle outlined in the overriding objective and Practice Direction 1A. The Court of Appeal, in its decision dated 14 July 2023, remitted the case for further determination of the reasonableness and proportionality of the interpreter’s fee quantified at £924. The court’s directions included guidelines for the defendant to challenge the fee if necessary within a given timeframe. The case was remitted to the court court and came before HHJ Dight CBE on 6 September 2024. Judgment was handed down on 21 February 2025.

Costs Issues Before the Court

The primary costs issue before the court was the assessment of the interpreter’s fee under CPR 45.29I(h). Following a remittance by the Court of Appeal to consider this disbursement, the central question was whether the fee for instructing an interpreter at the trial of the claim, claimed at £924 including VAT, was proportionate and reasonable. The Defendant’s contention included an alleged failure by the Claimant to provide a breakdown of the fee, suggesting the court either assess the fee at nil or reduce it to £300, drawing on the market rate for such services. The considerations also involved whether any part of the fee constituted an irrecoverable agency element, and if so, the impact of such an element on the recoverability of the total fee.

The Parties’ Positions

The Claimant, represented by Ben Williams KC, maintained that the interpreter’s fee, although involving an intermediary service provider, was a reasonable and proportionate fee within market standards. They argued that the booking was necessitated by the professional service context, and thus, a higher fee encompassing operational costs of the service provider was inevitable. The Claimant supplied comparable market quotations to substantiate their position, indicating the fee fell within a typical range and emphasising that any reduction should still recognise a reasonable market cost. Contrarily, the Defendant, through Robert Marven KC, contended the fee was unreasonably inflated and included an agency component that should not be recoverable under CPR 45.29I(h), referencing Crane v Canons Leisure Centre. They stressed the need for transparency, urging the court to compel disclosure of the fee breakdown, and argued for a reduction to a minimal sum of £300, aligned with direct bookings from public registers of interpreters at standard flat rates.

The Court’s Decision

His Hon Judge Dight CBE held that the interpreter’s fee was indeed a recoverable disbursement under CPR 45.29I(h). The Judge, after a meticulous analysis, rejected the argument that the fee should include an irrecoverable agency component when sourced through an intermediary. It was acknowledged that market practices for obtaining professional services often involve such intermediary costs, and the fee should be judged against prevailing market rates. The Court referenced the competitive market context for such services, drawing on data provided by the Claimant’s costs draftsman, Mr Neil Ryder, which showed a reasonable range of fees from similar service providers. The decision also took into account the proportionality rule under CPR 44.3, considering the entirety of the claim. The Judge held that the £924 fee was at the high end of the market range and was not proportionate to the claim’s settlement value and should be adjusted. Consequently, he determined an adjusted reasonable fee would be £662 plus VAT, totalling £794.40, thereby ensuring the fee was fair, reasonable and aligned with the proportionality bounds in relation to the claim’s overall value.

Specialist costs services across the UK

TMC Legal provides expert costs drafting, negotiaton and costs budgeting services together with representation in detailed assessment hearings. Our experienced costs lawyers and law costs draftsmen act nationwide. Contact us today.