Report on High Court case of Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust v AKC [2021] EWHC 2607 (QB)
Following settlement of the matter the Claimant / Respondent submitted their Bill of Costs for negotiation. NHS Resolution, acting for the Defendant/Appellant, sought to have the Bill struck out as they argued it failed to comply with several requirements, particularly that it did not give the name and status of each fee earner or identify the work undertaken by them. Master Nagalingam a Costs Master at the Senior Courts Costs Office declined to strike out the Bill and an appeal was then heard at the High Court by The Honourable Mrs Justice Steyn DBE with a Costs Judge sitting as assessor.
Mrs Justice Steyn held that each fee earner should be named in the Bill along with their hourly rate and status to identify the individual undertaking the work and avoid opaqueness. In addition, the identity of the person signing off the bill should be declared. Finally, the qualifications and years of post-qualification experience for each fee-earner must be given if applicable. This was felt to apply to paper bills as well as the electronic bill (Precedent S). As a result of this, the Claimant had to re-serve a compliant Bill.
Clearly the Court and paying parties are seeking full transparency in Bills submitted and this should be borne in mind, not only when the Bill is prepared but also on delegation of work to ensure that an appropriate grade of fee earner is utilised for the task to be undertaken.
In light of the issues raised during the hearing, permission to appeal on all three grounds addressed was granted.
On 10 May 2022, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision and upheld the point that the name, status and grade of each fee earner involved must be including in electronic Bills of Costs. It was deemed that the Judge had acted appropriately in striking out the original Bill of Costs and ordering the Claimant to file a compliant Bill.
In relation to electronic Bills, the Court stated that “Any electronic bill, whether in Precedent S spreadsheet format or any other spreadsheet format, must include the name, the SCCO grade and, in so far as it adds anything to the grade, the status of each fee earner except possibly in so far as the receiving party’s solicitors may have outsourced work to an agency”
In relation to paper Bills of Costs, the Court held that:
- While it was desirable that fee earners should be named in paper Bills of Costs, this was not an essential requirement;
- Receiving Party’s were not required to specify any qualifications or post-qualification experience of fee earners where none was relied on;
- The description of each fee earner’s status should include any professional qualification and, unless the SCCO grade is given, their number of years of post-qualification experience.
Reacting to the Judgment, the chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers, Jack Ridgway, stated that it was good news that the Court of Appeal recognised the need to issue guidance on Bills of Costs, especially as many lawyers were still getting to grips with the electronic Bill.
“The outcome here achieves a sensible balance – providing more upfront information about the fee-earners who worked on a matter will help resolve cases more quickly without unnecessary toing and froing between the parties.”
If you require any advice or assistance on the AKC v Barking ruling or any aspect of legal costs, please contact our Senior Partner, John Mistri, by calling 0800 086 2929 or by emailing jmistri@elitelawsolicitors.co.uk
