The Practice Directions to the Supreme Court Rules 2009 have been updated with new guideline hourly rate figures for the provisional assessment of costs. Funnily enough, they are identical to those for summary assessment in other courts.
For those who keep pretending that the Guideline Hourly Rates are only relevant for low value fast-track claims, and should play no part in detailed assessment, think again. These rates also operate as the starting point figures for assessment in matters heard in the Supreme Court.
Hi Simon
Don’t get too excited about reading back the Supreme Court’s practice on guideline rates to lower courts
I was instructed on a Supreme Court assessment recently and had a long chat with the assessing officer.
He candidly told me that his and his colleagues views are considered mean by the SCCO Masters.
He advised they stick rigidly to the guideline so far as solicitors ae concerned.
This is on the basis that by the time a matter gets to the Supreme Court the solicitor is little more than a post box with counsel doing all the donkey work.
That is correct and hence so far as a solicitor’s involvement and responsibility is concerned it is at or about the level of a simple fast track matter.
Hence application of guideline rates
Nice try on behalf of Defendants
We Claimant types are not shivvering in our beds on our multitrack cases in seeking above guideline
Kevyn Thompson
Abacus Legal Costs Limited
Hastings
Yep – Kevyn is right. The taxing clerks in the House of Lords often used to refuse to allow more than token amounts at grade A rates. The thing is that the Supreme Court only takes points of law, so there is limited solicitors’ work (unless there is solicitor advocacy) other than grade C/D bundle preparation and legal research.