header-logo header-logo

Justification is everything

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

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

Slater Heelis—Oliver Banks

Slater Heelis—Oliver Banks

Manchester firm strengthens Court of Protection expertise with partner hire

Talbots Law—Sara Pickerin & Nicholas Playford

Talbots Law—Sara Pickerin & Nicholas Playford

Agricultural law team expands with senior director appointments

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

NEWS
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold dives into the quirks of civil practice, from the Court of Appeal’s fierce defence of form N510 to fresh reminders about compliance and interest claims, in this week's Civil Way
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has restated a fundamental truth, writes John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke, in this week's NLJ: only authorised persons can conduct litigation. The decision sparked alarm, but Gould stresses it merely confirms the Legal Services Act 2007
The government’s decision to make the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the Single Professional Services Supervisor marks a watershed in the UK’s fight against money laundering, says Rebecca Hughes of Corker Binning in this week's NLJ. The FCA will now oversee 60,000 firms across legal and accountancy sectors—a massive expansion of remit that raises questions over resources and readiness 
The High Court's decision in Parfitt v Jones [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch) provided a striking reminder of the need to instruct the right expert in retrospective capacity assessments, says Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell in NLJ this week
Paige Coulter of Quinn Emanuel reports on the UK’s first statutory definition of SLAPPs under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll