header-logo header-logo

31 October 2025 / Sophie Houghton
Issue: 8137 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Dispute resolution , Costs , Fees
printer mail-detail

Justification is everything

234234
If you’re exceeding guideline hourly rates, vague assertions won’t cut it, writes Sophie Houghton
  • Courts use guideline hourly rates (GHR) as a starting point; exceeding them requires strong justification.
  • Vague claims of complexity or scale aren’t enough—clear evidence is needed to support higher rates.
  • Case law shows that without compelling reasons, courts won’t allow rates that are significantly above GHR.

When it comes to the question of costs, a longstanding bone of contention between the parties is the hourly rate which is being claimed by the receiving party for the work they have carried out.

Solicitors can technically charge their clients any hourly rate they choose for their services, as long as this is provided for in the retainer with their client. However, if the client seeks to recover those costs from another party, through a costs assessment, such costs will not be recoverable unless they are reasonable and proportionate.

From a practical perspective, when considering what hourly rates will be recoverable, you should be aware

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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
back-to-top-scroll