header-logo header-logo

Don’t fear the spreadsheet

03 May 2018 / Andy Ellis
Issue: 7791 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail
nlj_7791_elliss

Andy Ellis takes the pain out of electronic billing

  • From 6 April 2018, bills for Part 7 claims must be submitted in electronic spreadsheet form.
  • Law firms that adapt can reap the benefits.

Bills for detailed assessment in Part 7 claims must be submitted in electronic spreadsheet form for work carried out after 6 April 2018—and if that amendment to the CPR doesn’t get readers’ pulses racing, nothing will.

For the wider costs community, as Mr Justice Birss has explained, surrendering to Excel equates to ‘being dragged kicking and screaming into the 1980s’. The more pertinent question then is not, ‘Why is this needed?’ but ‘Why has it taken so long?’

The reassuring news for practitioners whose heads are already hitting the desk at this point is that they probably need to know little about the mechanics of the new electronic bill. Those who are sanguine about the merits of pivot tables and the benefits of xml schema can safely

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll