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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll