Above Guideline Rate costs recovery for ‘Specialist’ work
Above Guideline Rate costs recovery for ‘Specialist’ work (Lappet Manufacturing & Anor v Mr Basil Ibraham Rassam & Ors)
The Decision
In Lappet Manufacturing & Anor v Mr Basil Ibraham Rassam & Ors [2022] EWHC 2158 (Ch) Mr Justice Johnson allowed a higher hourly rate recovery for solicitors based outside of London.
Mr Justice Johnson held “…a departure from the Guideline Rates is justified on the basis of the long-established principle that specialist solicitors in specialist areas of activity should recover an uplift to reflect that specialism, where that is justified in the circumstances [emphasis added].”
The Facts
The Claimants successfully resisted two applications made by the Defendants. It was agreed in principle that the Claimants were entitled to their costs but there was disagreement as regards the amount payable and the time allowed for payment.
The main contention with regards to the amount centred on the hourly rate. The Claimants’ solicitors were based in Nottingham. Guideline Rates for Grade A and C are £261 and £178 per hour respectively. The mean calculation of the claimed rates (for 2021 and 2022) were £475 and £310. By contrast, London 2 rates are £373 and £244.
Mr Justice Johnson was satisfied that there was justification for an increase on the basis of the complexity of the issues which arose on the two applications. Both required specialist knowledge of intellectual property and trademark claims. Therefore, the Claimants were fully justified in engaging solicitors with the appropriate specialist knowledge. He did not regard the case as one on which the justification put forward for a rate increase was generalised in nature. It was put specifically on the basis of the specialist procedural knowledge needed in order to act effectively. Therefore, his decision did not fall foul of LJ Males’ comments in Samsung v LG Display, which were:
…if a rate in excess of the guideline rate is to be charged, then a “clear and compelling justification must be provided”, and it is not enough merely to say that a case is a “commercial case, or a competition case, or that it has an international element, unless there is something about those factors in the case in question which justifies exceeding the guideline rate”…
Therefore, but also bearing in mind the need for proportionality in the context of a claim which may have only a limited value in any event, Mr Justice Johnson allowed hourly rates of £350 for Grade A and £230 for Grade C.
By contrast, counsel’s fees were reduced from £8,400 to £6,000. The Claimants arguments that the Defendants’ own counsel’s fees were more than £12,840 failed to persuade the Court that they should recover them in full. All that did was show that the Defendants’ fees for counsel were also disproportionately high.
Sue Fox, Head of Costs Management
01.09.22