XX v Young [2025] EWHC 680 (SCCO)
1. 📌 Brief Introduction to the Case
The case of XX v Young [2025] EWHC 680 (SCCO) provides vital guidance on cost recoverability across several points. Here, we look at internal communications and the delegation of tasks within a legal team. Decided by Costs Judge Nagalingam, the judgment arose during a detailed assessment hearing concerning the bill of costs submitted on behalf of a claimant in a personal injury claim.
The judgment draws particular attention to how delegation and internal communications are treated in detailed costs assessments, alongside proportionality and efficiency in litigation. This decision will be of particular interest to solicitors managing large or complex litigation where task distribution across a legal team is routine.
2. 🧠 Background to the Case
The underlying claim involved multiple claimants, all represented by the same firm, Leigh Day. The second claimant a quantum-only claim in personal injury litigation following a serious road traffic accident.
3. 🧮 Summary of the Outcome and Practical Implications for Solicitors
Costs Judge Nagalingam’s decision strikes a pragmatic balance between recognising the operational realities of legal practice and ensuring proportionality in costs recovery. The court did not accept the defendant’s argument that time spent on internal communications and delegation should automatically be disallowed, but it imposed meaningful reductions where the time claimed was excessive or duplicative.
Key Outcomes:
- Delegation is recoverable in principle
The Costs Judge confirmed that delegation—whether via memo or internal discussion—cannot occur without some communication. Therefore, it is not inherently irrecoverable. However, the efficiency and necessity of the delegation are critical to assessing the recoverability of time. - Grade A over-involvement attracts scrutiny
The Costs Judge flagged concern about senior solicitors undertaking or duplicating basic tasks. For example, a Grade A was heavily involved in file management and communication tasks that could have been handled by junior staff. Where that happened, reductions were made. - Excessive internal communication raises proportionality concerns
Although recoverable, 93.25 hours claimed for internal communications was flagged as the highest ever seen by the Costs Judge. He warned that if a proportionality reduction is made at the end of the assessment, this is a likely target for further reduction.
💡 Key Takeaways for Solicitors
This decision serves as a clear wake-up call on managing delegation and documenting costs effectively:
- Be strategic in delegation: Ensure time spent on delegation is not excessive and is proportionate to the experience level of the person performing it.
- Avoid over-involvement of senior staff: Grade A fee earners should not be handling tasks that could be performed by more junior staff, particularly where this inflates costs.
- Clearly record task purpose and necessity: Ambiguous time entries are more vulnerable to challenge. Time records should show purpose, outcome, and relevance.
- Expect scrutiny of internal communications: Even if recoverable, time spent in internal discussion must be justified. Consider whether a more streamlined
Conclusion: XX v Young reaffirms that internal delegation and communications are recoverable, but only when approached with precision, proportionality, and clear justification. Solicitors should view this as an opportunity to review their billing practices and team workflows to ensure costs can stand up to scrutiny under detailed assessment.
How can PIC Assist?
We can provide insightful and current training on best practice regarding costs and delegation, and via our TTL+ service we can provide contemporary proactive guidance on your cases and flag any aspects of work, whether incurred or likely to be incurred, that would benefit from delegation or where some delegation would benefit from reasoned justification, which the reasons remain fresh in your mind.
Lee Dixon, Legal Costs Services ManagerÂ
10.04.2025