Page 25 - PIC Magazine Autumn Issue 16

Where is the review likely to take us? Well, it’s worth remembering that as with 2014, the recommendations of the CJC working group will not simply be rubber stamped. Change will only be made if approved by the Master of the Rolls (Lord Justice Vos takes office on 11 January 2021).
In a paragraph which has since attracted significant attention, and has been cited with increasing regularity, O’Farrell J held that:
“It is unsatisfactory that the guidelines are based on rates fixed in 2010 and reviewed in 2014, as they are not helpful in determining reasonable rates in 2019. The guideline rates are significantly lower than the current hourly rates in many London City solicitors, as used by both parties in this case. Further, updated guidelines would be very welcome7”.
Criticism from the High Court about the usefulness of GHRs from 2010 quickly rippled across the market and seemed to bring fresh momentum to demands for another review.
It was significant that at the ACL Conference in Manchester in December 2019, Master James said that the decision in Ohpen had “created a mood and perhaps an impetus for change that might not have been there before8”.
What might we expect
from the review?
The review is currently in its evidence- gathering stage. Evidence is being collated in two parts.
The first is to obtain information on the hourly rates allowed at assessments between 1 April 2019 and 31 August 2020; and, where possible, of hourly rates agreed between parties, whether or not the case ultimately went to assessment. Such information is to be provided by way of an Excel spreadsheet which has been distributed by the CJC working group, and which can also be accessed directly from the ACL. Evidence is to be submitted no later than 31 October 2020.
The second is to obtain information from costs assessments between 1 September 2020 and 27 November 2020. Practitioners are asked
to provide as much information as they can
as soon as possible after each assessment. Helpfully, the process is user-friendly and streamlined, with the option of submitting
the information online (https://forms.office. com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=V0U- chcv7UOecfG-slPlRtOHTIHF0jtIk6mE8FARggx UQ1pLOVlMUzVZRllMMDNOU0NXUUZVSEg ySi4u).
The form is designed to obtain information on the level of judge; the court where the assessment took place; the type of claim; the value of the claim and/or detail of any non-monetary remedy sought; the location of the receiving party’s solicitors (both city/town and postcode); total of the bill/schedule; the type of assessment; the hourly rates claimed; the hourly rates allowed; and any ‘out of the norm’ features that affected the hourly rates allowed.
Where is the review likely to take us? Well, it’s worth remembering that as with 2014, the recommendations of the CJC working group will not simply be rubber stamped. Change will only be made if approved by the Master of the Rolls (Lord Justice Vos takes office on 11 January 2021). However, while nothing more than the author’s own opinion, it is extremely likely that recommendations for
new GHRs are likely to
be made, at figures
significantly higher
than those set in
2010. The message
from the working
group is clear: if
you have evidence,
please provide it. As
Chief Master Gordon-
Saker said at the
Costs Law Reports
Conference on 24
September 2020, it is
in no one’s interest
for this review to
fail for lack of
evidence.
Matthew Waszak is a Barrister at Temple Garden Chambers.
25
www.pic.legal Autumn 2020 PARTNERS IN COSTS