The High Court reduced a pro bono costs claim from £393,329 to £117,000, applying strict guideline hourly rates and significantly cutting hours for attendances and document review under section 194’s discretionary principles.
When assessing a payment to be made under a pro bono costs order pursuant to section 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007, the court is not bound to award a sum that exactly corresponds to the costs order it would have made had the representation not been free, and may adopt a broad brush approach, erring on the side of caution. [8, 9, 25]
In exercising its discretion to assess a payment under a pro bono costs order, the court must have regard to the dual legislative purposes of section 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007, which are to level the litigation playing field and to provide a source of funding for the provision of free legal services. [9, 17, 25]
Where a legal representative’s claimed hourly rate exceeds the applicable guideline rate, a clear and compelling justification must be provided; in the absence of such justification, the rate will be reduced to the guideline rate. [19]
The reasonableness of instructing solicitors from a particular geographical location is assessed by reference to the circumstances as they exist at the time of instruction, which may differ from historical authority due to changes in the legal services market, technology, and specialisation. [16]
When assessing notional costs under a pro bono costs order, the court may make significant reductions to claimed time for categories of work, such as attendances and document review, where the figures appear extraordinarily high or disproportionate in the context of the case, and where there has been a lack of appropriate delegation to junior fee-earners. [20, 21, 22, 24]
