Costs Recovery Insights for Claimant Solicitors

Successful costs recovery rarely turns on a single argument at detailed assessment. More often, it reflects the decisions made throughout the litigation — from the structure of the retainer to the discipline of time recording and the strategic management of costs.

This series highlights practical issues that regularly arise in detailed assessment proceedings and costs recovery. Each article addresses common pitfalls and strategic considerations drawn from real costs litigation.

• Five Steps to Maximise Costs Recovery from the Outset
• Three CPR Pitfalls That Can Derail Your Costs Recovery
• How Paying Parties Challenge Bills and How to Anticipate It
• What Your Client Will Actually Recover
• Disbursements: What You Can Really Recover and How to Support the Claim
• Costs Mediation: When It Works and When to Use It
• Fixed Recoverable Costs and the Intermediate Track
• Part 36 Offers: Using Them to Strengthen Your Costs Position
• How Case Management Orders Affect Costs Recovery
• Proportionality and Reasonableness: Avoiding Reductions at Detailed Assessment

The detailed assessment process starts long before the Bill is drawn. The decisions made at the outset, and the discipline maintained throughout litigation, can significantly impact the outcome of costs proceedings.

At Blackstone Legal Costing, we’ve seen how early missteps in the substantive action can lead to avoidable reductions in costs. Equally, we know that a structured, proactive approach positions your costs claim for success.

Here are five practical but powerful steps to get right early on:

1) Secure a compliant retainer and funding agreement

Ensure the client care letter, funding documentation, and any CFA or DBA are correctly drafted and fully compliant. Unclear or defective agreements are a common source of challenge and can undermine recovery from the outset.

2) Prioritise clear, contemporaneous time recording

Credibility is everything. Time entries should be detailed, precise, and outcome-focused, avoid vague references or block billing. The same applies to file notes: contemporaneous records help justify case conduct and cost.

A well-recorded file is the best foundation for a defensible Bill.

3) Treat your Costs Budget as a live case management tool

Once approved or agreed, the Budget should be actively monitored. Lawyers should be aware of phase limits, and regular internal reviews should track ongoing compliance.

If costs are likely to exceed the approved figures, take early advice — late-stage justification rarely succeeds without good reason and procedural compliance.

4) Build proportionality into your litigation strategy

Proportionality is not just about total spend, it’s reflected in how the case is run. Decisions around expert evidence, delegation, and interim applications should all be defensible in terms of necessity and value.

A proportionate approach is easier to justify than to retrofit.

5) Involve a Costs Lawyer early, not just at the end

While the Bill of Costs is prepared post-settlement, strategic costs input can be invaluable much earlier — during budgeting, negotiations, or where proportionality is at risk.

A Costs Lawyer can help identify risks, eliminate non-recoverable items, and ensure your case is positioned for maximum recovery. Early involvement prevents problems later.

6) Need strategic support with costs recovery?
At Blackstone Legal Costing, we work closely with claimant solicitors throughout the litigation cycle, from budgeting to detailed assessment, to help secure robust and justifiable recoveries.

Get in touch if you’d like to discuss how we can help protect and maximise your client’s recoverable costs.

The Rules governing detailed assessment may appear straightforward — but even small missteps can have significant consequences. Procedural oversights are not only disruptive but can result in wasted costs, strike-out applications, and unnecessary delay.

At Blackstone Legal Costing, we regularly support claimant solicitors in navigating these technicalities with confidence. Here are three of the most common traps — and how to steer clear of them

1) Incomplete or non-compliant Notice of Commencement (CPR 47.6)

Detailed assessment proceedings are only validly commenced if the Bill of Costs is served alongside a correctly completed N252 (Notice of Commencement).
Pitfall: Omitting the Notice, or serving an incomplete version, can invalidate service — resetting the clock and causing costly delays.
Avoid it: Always ensure the N252 is properly completed and served with the Bill. Partial or informal service may be insufficient and open to challenge.

2) Missing the 3-month deadline (CPR 47.7)

Under CPR 47.7, the receiving party must commence detailed assessment proceedings within 3 months of the final order, unless the court directs otherwise.
Pitfall: Relying on informal discussions or delaying for tactical reasons can result in the paying party applying to strike out the Bill — with the receiving party at risk of an adverse costs order.
Avoid it: Diarise the 3-month deadline as soon as judgment is sealed. If you need more time, apply for an extension before time expires.

3) Misusing or overlooking Replies to Points of Dispute (CPR 47.13)

Replies are not mandatory, but when used correctly, they can clarify key issues and reduce the scope of argument at assessment.

Pitfall: Failing to reply when clarification or concessions would assist, or submitting replies that breach CPR 47.13 by being argumentative or excessive, can undermine your credibility and invite criticism.

Avoid it:

• If replying, do so within 21 days of receiving the Points of Dispute;
• Limit the content to points of principle and concessions only;
• Use replies strategically to sharpen your position and reduce areas of contention.

4) Strategic costs recovery starts with procedural precision
At Blackstone Legal Costing, we help claimant solicitors avoid unnecessary procedural pitfalls and position their cases for efficient, effective recovery.

Get in touch if you’d like support with any aspect of CPR compliance or costs recovery.

A well-drafted Bill is only half the battle. To secure the best recovery, it must also withstand scrutiny from a paying party determined to reduce it.

At Blackstone Legal Costing, we act exclusively for receiving parties, and we understand the tactics used by defendants to chip away at costs claims. The good news? Many of these challenges are predictable, and avoidable with the right preparation.

Here are five common areas of attack — and how you can help mitigate them:

1) Avoid vague or generic time entries

Broad descriptions like “file review” or “consider document” offer no insight into necessity or relevance. These are easy targets for challenge.

What helps: Encourage fee earners to record time with specificity — which documents, for what purpose, and what action followed.

2) Unexplained repetition or duplication

Multiple fee earners recording similar tasks, or tasks repeated without clear justification, will raise red flags.

What helps: Where repetition is necessary (e.g. due to updates, supervision, or evolving issues), ensure file notes support this. A concise explanation in the Bill narrative also strengthens your position

3) Proportionality under the microscope

Even where costs are reasonable, paying parties frequently argue they are disproportionate, particularly in modest or seemingly straightforward cases.

What helps: Maintain contemporaneous records of complexity, expert involvement, or sensitive client issues that justify the approach taken. These help reinforce the proportionality of the claim later on.

4) Inclusion of non-recoverable time

Charges for administrative tasks, generic file reviews, or correcting mistakes are unlikely to survive assessment — and risk undermining the credibility of the Bill.

What helps: Flag these entries early for exclusion when sending the file for costing. A clean Bill is a credible Bill.

5) Costs Budget inconsistencies

In cost-managed cases, the Bill will be assessed against the approved Budget on a phase-by-phase basis. Overspend without explanation is a clear vulnerability.

What helps: Track your Budget throughout the litigation. If an overspend is likely, take early advice. If you’ve stayed within Budget, highlight this when instructing us.

Protect your client’s position from the outset
At Blackstone Legal Costing, we work collaboratively with claimant solicitors to anticipate challenge, prepare defensible claims, and secure the best possible recovery.

Get in touch if you’d like help preparing for detailed assessment or maximising recovery.

A favourable costs order is only part of the picture. Your client’s actual recovery will depend on how the claim is presented, assessed, and defended.

At Blackstone Legal Costing, one of the most common questions we hear from solicitors is:
“How much will my client actually get back?”

Here’s what you need to know to give realistic guidance, and how to maximise what your client ultimately recovers:

1) Standard or indemnity basis? Know the playing field.

Most assessments proceed on the standard basis, meaning only reasonable and proportionate costs will be allowed.

On the indemnity basis, the court adopts a more generous approach — proportionality is excluded, and doubts are resolved in the receiving party’s favour.

Tip: Be clear from the outset which basis applies and ensure your costs strategy reflects it.

2) Understand and anticipate typical reductions

Even well-presented Bills are often reduced by 20–30% on standard basis assessments. Greater reductions are likely if time records are vague, the file lacks detail, or the overall costs appear disproportionate.

Tip: Set client expectations early. Instruct a Costs Lawyer to review the file in advance and identify potential vulnerabilities before service.

3) Distinguish between recoverable and non-recoverable items

Administrative tasks, internal supervision, excessive partner input, and unqualified support time are common targets for challenge. Disbursements without supporting evidence, particularly agency mark-ups or travel, also face scrutiny.

Tip: Provide complete instructions and full supporting material, including expert invoices, court orders, and funding documentation. Strong recovery relies on strong records.

4) Budgeted cases: phase-by-phase control

Where a Costs Budget has been approved, recovery is generally capped unless there’s good reason to depart, and that justification must be made out clearly.

Tip: Monitor costs against the Budget throughout. If overspend seems likely, take early advice. A reactive explanation at assessment is rarely persuasive.

5) Remember: recovery v full reimbursement

Your client’s entitlement is to recover costs from the paying party, not to be fully reimbursed. The shortfall between what is claimed and what is recovered is almost inevitable and should be addressed transparently.

Tip: Build this into your client care process. We can assist with concise recovery breakdowns to help you explain any deduction and avoid complaints or disputes.

Want a costs strategy grounded in realism and results?
At Blackstone Legal Costing, we support claimant solicitors throughout the litigation lifecycle — preparing defensible claims, advising on strategy, and ensuring you and your client get the best possible result.

Get in touch if you’d like to discuss how we can support your next claim.

Disbursements are often the most heavily scrutinised part of a Bill of Costs, and the easiest area for paying parties to chip away at. While many items are technically recoverable, the level of challenge depends on how well they’re evidenced, framed, and justified.

Here’s a sharper look at how you can support successful recovery:

Medical Evidence – Justify the Scope, Not Just the Spend

Courts routinely allow reasonable expert fees, but justification is key where there are multiple experts, joint instructions, or updated reports.
What helps: Brief file notes explaining the need for multiple disciplines, or why clarification/addenda were needed mid-litigation.

Counsel’s Fees – Always Proportionate, Never Assumed

Even where Counsel’s involvement is routine, the fee level must reflect the complexity of the matter and the stage reached.
What helps: Clarify whether written advice, conferences, or advocacy was required and whether it fell within budgeted or non-budgeted phases.

Medical Agencies – Transparency Prevents Attrition

While the expert’s fee is usually recoverable, agency uplifts attract regular challenge.
What helps: If a breakdown isn’t available, let us know early. We can pre-empt the challenge and address the proportionality of any uplift in the narrative.

Travel, Interpretation, and Support Needs – Be Ahead of the Curve

Disbursements linked to vulnerable clients or access needs can be recovered, but only if the court understands why they were essential.
What helps: A brief note on why remote attendance wasn’t suitable, why in-person attendance was necessary, or why an interpreter was required (especially for pre-lit work).

Pagination, Collation, and Document Handling – A Grey Area

Third-party pagination or outsourced collation may be allowed if justified, but these disbursements need to be carefully framed.
What helps: Identify whether pagination was ordered by the court, required for ADR or joint expert instruction, or proportionate in light of the case complexity.

Pro tip: It’s not just what’s claimed — it’s how it’s presented

High-value or unusual disbursements are rarely allowed without supporting explanation. We can only recover what we can justify.

Work with us to flag potential friction points early, so they can be proactively addressed in the Bill.

Want to maximise disbursement recovery without overreaching?
At Blackstone Legal Costing, we help claimant firms recover what they’re entitled to, with clarity, credibility and strategy.

Get in touch if you’d like tailored support with your next Bill of Costs.

Costs mediation is no longer a last resort, it’s becoming a mainstream tool for resolving detailed assessment disputes, particularly in high-value or multi-party litigation. But is it always appropriate? And how do you maximise its value when it is?

Here’s what you need to know when considering mediation as part of your costs strategy:

When is costs mediation worth considering?

Mediation is particularly effective where:

• The Bill is large or complex, and both sides want to avoid the time and cost of assessment
• There are mixed issues of principle, proportionality, and budgeting
• Settlement negotiations have reached an impasse, but neither side wants to risk an adverse costs ruling

Tip: It’s also a helpful option where wider settlement terms are being discussed, including staged payments or interest.

What are the risks of not mediating?

Courts increasingly expect parties to consider ADR seriously, including in costs disputes.
Refusing to mediate without good reason could lead to:

• Adverse costs orders (even if you win the assessment)
• Judicial criticism or wasted costs
• Missed opportunities for creative settlement outcomes

What can you do to prepare?

Mediation is most effective when both parties are well prepared and realistic.
Instruct us early to:

• Identify key areas of risk or exposure
• Quantify likely reductions and offer ranges
• Prepare a clear, evidence-backed mediation position statement

What makes costs mediation different?

Unlike liability mediations, costs disputes are number-driven — but they’re still open to negotiation.
Having a Costs Lawyer who can speak the language of both assessment and compromise can significantly shift the dynamic in your favour.

Considering mediation in a live or upcoming costs dispute?
At Blackstone Legal Costing, we’ve supported successful costs mediations in a wide range of matters, saving clients time, money, and courtroom risk.

Get in touch if you’d like to explore whether mediation is the right move for your case.

The modern litigation landscape is increasingly shaped by fixed recoverable costs and structured costs control. The expansion of fixed costs regimes and the introduction of the intermediate track mean that claimant solicitors must approach litigation strategy with greater cost discipline from the outset.

While these developments aim to promote predictability and efficiency, they also restrict the scope for recovering work that falls outside the prescribed framework. Understanding how these regimes operate, and planning accordingly, is essential to protecting your client’s costs position.

Here are four key practical considerations:

1) Identify early whether the case falls within fixed costs

The intermediate track applies to cases of moderate complexity with a value of up to £100,000. Early identification is crucial, as the applicable track determines the recoverable cost structure and the level of flexibility available.

2) Align litigation strategy with recoverable cost structures

Where fixed recoverable costs apply, undertaking additional work beyond the structured stages will not necessarily translate into greater recovery. Strategic decisions should therefore reflect the limits of the regime.

3) Treat costs budgeting as a strategic tool

For cases outside fixed costs, budgeting remains central to costs recovery. Courts expect budgets to reflect a realistic and proportionate litigation strategy. Budgets that appear excessive or poorly justified may be significantly reduced at costs management hearings.

4) Monitor costs throughout the litigation

Whether operating within fixed costs or under a costs management regime, it is essential to keep expenditure under review. Early identification of potential issues allows for timely strategic adjustments and helps avoid difficulties at detailed assessment.

5) Stay ahead of evolving costs regimes

At Blackstone Legal Costing, we support claimant solicitors in navigating fixed costs regimes, costs budgeting, and detailed assessment. Our aim is to ensure costs claims remain robust, strategic, and positioned for maximum recovery.

Get in touch if you would like to discuss how we can support your next matter.

Part 36 offers are not just a settlement tool; they can significantly influence costs liability at detailed assessment. When used correctly, a well-timed Part 36 offer can shift risk, apply pressure to the paying party, and secure enhanced recoverable costs. However, errors or oversights may expose your client to adverse costs consequences or prevent them from recovering interest.

At Blackstone Legal Costing, we regularly advise claimant solicitors on Part 36 strategy in complex litigation, ensuring offers are drafted and deployed to maximise costs recovery.

Here are five practical steps to get it right.

1) Understand the Costs Consequences of Part 36 Offers

Part 36 consequences can include enhanced interest and indemnity costs under CPR 36.17. In Stockler & Anor v The Corporation of the Hall of the Arts and Sciences [2025] EWHC 3080 (SCCO), the court considered a Part 36 offer containing a minor clerical error and confirmed that the validity of the offer remains central to triggering Part 36 consequences, including interest and costs after the relevant period.

2) Timing Your Part 36 Offer Correctly

Offers made too early may lack credibility, while offers made too late may reduce their strategic impact. A well-judged Part 36 offer should align with key litigation milestones and reflect the client’s appetite for risk.

3) Draft Clearly and Precisely

Ambiguity undermines enforceability. Although minor errors in form or wording will not always invalidate a Part 36 offer, the court will ultimately look to whether the substance of the offer is clear.

4) Record Strategy and Instructions

Solicitors should document all advice given and instructions received in relation to Part 36 offers. Clear contemporaneous records can justify the strategic decisions made and assist in defending the offer if it is later scrutinised at detailed assessment.

5) Integrate Part 36 with Your Overall Costs Strategy

Part 36 should not be considered in isolation. Its effectiveness often depends on how it interacts with costs budgeting, proportionality arguments, and the preparation of evidence. Early involvement from a specialist Costs Lawyer can help ensure the offer supports your overall recovery strategy.

6) Maximise your recoverable costs

At Blackstone Legal Costing, we help claimant solicitors ensure that Part 36 offers are carefully drafted, compliant with the rules, and positioned to maximise costs recovery.

Get in touch to discuss how we can help strengthen your costs position.

Case management orders play a critical role in litigation. They govern disclosure, witness evidence, expert engagement, and procedural timetables, all of which can directly affect recoverable costs. Non-compliance, unrealistic planning, or failure to align litigation steps with court directions can lead to reductions at detailed assessment or, in some cases, adverse costs orders.

At Blackstone Legal Costing, we help claimant solicitors anticipate the costs implications of case management orders and protect their client’s recovery.

Here are five practical considerations.

1) Know Every Relevant Direction

Orders concerning disclosure, expert evidence, or witness statements can affect both necessity and proportionality arguments at detailed assessment. Work undertaken outside the scope of the court’s directions may be vulnerable to challenge.

2) Document Compliance and Strategy

Maintain clear contemporaneous records demonstrating compliance with directions and the reasoning behind key strategic decisions. These records can be critical if the paying party later challenges the recoverability of costs.

3) Assess Costs Implications Before Varying Orders

Applications to vary directions or extend deadlines should always consider the potential costs consequences, including proportionality issues and the possibility of wasted costs arguments.

4) Coordinate Early with Costs Specialists

Early involvement from a specialist Costs Lawyer can help ensure that litigation strategy, costs budgeting, and evidence preparation align with the court’s directions and the likely approach at detailed assessment.

5) Identify Costs Risks Early

If the opposing party breaches an order or the litigation timetable becomes unrealistic, it is important to identify the potential costs implications at an early stage. Courts are increasingly willing to scrutinise litigation costs at the case management stage, particularly where budgets appear unrealistic.

In GS Woodland Court GP 1 Ltd & Anor v RGCM Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 285 (TCC), the claimant’s costs budget of £8.74m was reduced to £4.21m. The court described the original budget as “unrealistic in terms of reasonableness and proportionality” and ordered the claimant to pay certain defendants’ costs of the costs management hearing.

Protect your client from unnecessary costs reductions

At Blackstone Legal Costing, we provide proactive advice on case management compliance and costs strategy to help claimant solicitors maximise recoverable costs.

Get in touch for guidance on minimising costs risks linked to court directions.

Under the proportionality test in CPR 44.3(5), recoverable costs must be both reasonable and proportionate. Even well-prepared bills may be reduced if the court considers the overall level of costs excessive when viewed against the value, complexity, or importance of the claim. The rules require the court to “stand back” and consider proportionality after the line-by-line assessment has been carried out.

At Blackstone Legal Costing, we assist claimant solicitors in demonstrating that costs claimed are both reasonable and proportionate.

1) Maintain Detailed Records

Clear time entries and file notes are essential to justify the work undertaken. Detailed contemporaneous records assist in demonstrating that costs claimed were necessary and reasonable when scrutinised at detailed assessment.

2) Consider Proportionality from the Start

Strategic decisions regarding experts, applications, and litigation steps should always be considered in light of the likely value, complexity, and risks of the case.

3) Avoid Duplication and Repetition

Work undertaken by multiple fee earners performing similar tasks without clear justification may attract challenge and reduction at assessment.

4) Exclude Non-recoverable Work Early

Administrative or purely internal tasks are unlikely to be recoverable. Removing such items early can strengthen the overall credibility of the bill.

5) Link Costs to the Outcome Achieved

Costs that demonstrably contribute to advancing the litigation or achieving the final outcome are easier to justify when proportionality is considered.

Recent Case Examples

In XX v Jordan Young & Aviva Insurance Ltd, claimed costs of £517,985 were reduced to £324,029.77 following a line-by-line assessment and subsequent proportionality reduction. The court emphasised that proportionality must be assessed in light of factors including the realistic value of the claim and the circumstances of the claimant.

In Stockler & Anor v The Corporation of the Hall of the Arts and Sciences, the court rejected a purely mathematical approach to proportionality and confirmed that factors such as complexity, context, and the conduct of the litigation must also be taken into account.

Demonstrate proportionality and protect recovery

At Blackstone Legal Costing, we help claimant solicitors ensure that bills are robust, proportionate, and defensible at detailed assessment.

Get in touch to discuss how we can support your costs strategy and protect your client’s recovery.