Generic points of dispute that fail to identify specific grounds for challenging individual bill items may prevent a costs judge from making reductions, even where the judge considers reductions warranted. Compliance with CPR PD 47 para 8.2 remains essential.
-
The instruction of leading counsel may be reasonable where counsel has substantial prior involvement in the matter, even if the application itself might otherwise have been capable of being handled by a less senior advocate. Continuity and accumulated knowledge are legitimate factors supporting recovery.
-
A conclusion that leading counsel was reasonably instructed does not require the court to accept that leading counsel’s rate was justified throughout. However, the court will assess this on a granular basis, rather than disallowing the instruction wholesale.
-
Where both leading and junior counsel are instructed, the court will scrutinise whether their respective roles were justified, but will recognise situations where junior counsel’s involvement was appropriate to ensure continuity, cover absences, or assist with preparation under time pressure.
-
Deficiencies in the paying party’s Points of Dispute can materially protect a receiving party’s recovery. Generic objections that fail to engage with individual items may leave the court constrained from making reductions, even where the judge has reservations.
-
The court will not reconstruct or improve defective objections for the paying party. If item-specific challenges are not properly articulated in the Points of Dispute, the receiving party is entitled to rely on that failure and recover costs that might otherwise have been vulnerable.
