Legal fees are an inevitable part of litigation – but that doesn’t mean they’re set in stone. Whether you’re a paying party, an in-house counsel, or a solicitor acting on behalf of a client, there are clear and legitimate ways to challenge legal costs that appear excessive or disproportionate.

When costs are assessed on the standard basis, the burden falls on the receiving party to demonstrate that their fees are both reasonable and proportionate. This opens the door for strategic objections that can significantly reduce what’s payable – especially when supported by detailed, fact-specific arguments.

In this article, we explore how to scrutinise legal costs effectively and challenge inflated claims, from retainers and hourly rates to late assessments and poor drafting.

1. Start with the Basics: Is the Retainer Valid?

Before diving into the figures, it’s essential to determine whether the receiving party has the legal basis to recover costs at all. This starts with the retainer – the agreement between the solicitor and their client.

If the retainer is invalid, incomplete, or outside the scope of the work claimed, the entire foundation for recovering costs may be undermined. Particular attention should be paid to:

• Assignments of Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs)
• Changes from legal aid to CFA during the case
• Funding arrangements that are unclear or inconsistently documented

If there’s a genuine concern, the paying party is entitled to request clarification. That said, the request should be specific and proportionate – aimed at resolving a legitimate issue, not launching a speculative “fishing expedition.”

2. Review the Costs Orders Carefully

Costs must reflect the outcome of the litigation and the court’s directions. That’s why it’s critical to examine all costs orders made throughout the proceedings. Certain scenarios automatically disqualify particular elements from being recovered:

• “No order as to costs” on an application means neither party can claim costs for it.
• “Costs in the application” typically defers the costs decision until a later stage.
• Orders that are silent on costs may also signal that recovery is not permitted.

Cross-referencing each part of the Bill of Costs against the relevant court orders can reveal claims that overstep the boundaries. These should be identified early and firmly objected to.

From examining the funding arrangement to cross-referencing orders, early scrutiny of costs can yield significant reductions. But succeeding in a detailed assessment often depends on the strength and structure of the objections raised.

According to Athene Legal, “it is imperative that proper consideration is given to the full extent of the nature and range of objections that could be advanced to minimise the paying party’s liability for costs.”

In other words, don’t just focus on numbers – focus on strategy. The strongest challenges are those that blend legal principle with precise, case-specific detail.

3. Use Proportionality to Your Advantage

When it comes to costs, proportionality is a key battleground. Many paying parties focus on the value of the claim as their sole argument – but CPR 44.3(5) sets out a wider set of factors.

To assess proportionality, the following must be considered:

• The complexity of the proceedings
• The importance of the case to the parties
• The amount of money involved
• The financial position of the parties
• Any wider factors, such as issues of public interest

By highlighting where a case was procedurally straightforward, or where the monetary value was low relative to the costs claimed, paying parties can argue that the overall fees are disproportionate. And when doubt arises, the court resolves it in favour of the paying party.

4. Interrogate the Hourly Rates and Delegation

A common source of inflated costs lies in the allocation of work across fee earners. The Civil Procedure Rules encourage efficiency and proportionality, and this includes delegating routine work to junior staff wherever appropriate.

If a Grade A solicitor (such as a partner) is charging top rates for administrative or drafting tasks that could have been handled by a Grade D or trainee, there may be grounds for objection. Key questions to ask include:

• Was the work suitable for a junior fee earner?
• Is there a clear pattern of overqualified individuals carrying out basic tasks?
• Are the claimed hourly rates consistent with the complexity of the task?

Where these concerns arise, it may be appropriate to argue for a lower rate or reduced hours for the work in question.

5. Watch for Changes in Fee Earners or Counsel

Changes in personnel – whether solicitors or counsel – can significantly inflate legal costs. Each handover often involves “reading in,” duplicating previous work to get up to speed. While sometimes unavoidable, these transitions are not automatically the paying party’s burden to fund.

Challenge any duplicated time or excessive handover costs unless a clear and justified reason is provided. If the change was due to poor planning, internal restructuring, or non-availability, the receiving party may not be entitled to recover the resulting costs in full.

6. Don’t Overlook Delays in Commencing Detailed Assessment

Interest on legal costs accrues from the date of the judgment or order, and in high-value cases, this can add up quickly. However, CPR 47.7 requires the receiving party to commence detailed assessment proceedings within three months.

If they delay beyond this, and cannot offer good reason for the lapse, the paying party can argue that interest should be reduced or disallowed for the late period. This can make a substantial difference to the final figure – especially where interest is claimed under the Judgments Act 1838 or County Courts Act 1984.

7. Flag Poorly Drafted Bills of Costs

The Bill of Costs itself is a key battleground. If it is poorly drafted, contains disallowed items, or makes assessment unnecessarily complex, it may be open to challenge.

For example:

• Have costs been double-counted?
• Is the Bill structured in a way that hinders review?
• Are costs miscategorised or presented with inadequate detail?

In such cases, consider disputing not just the figures but the costs of preparing the Bill itself. If the work involved was straightforward, the preparer’s claimed hourly rate may also be excessive.

8. Make Your Points of Dispute Count

The Points of Dispute are your opportunity to shape the outcome of the assessment. While Practice Direction 47 requires that they be “short and to the point,” they must also be persuasive, specific, and well-evidenced.

Avoid copy-paste templates. Instead:

• Tailor objections to the facts of the case
• Address high-value or questionable items first
• Reference relevant case law or CPR provisions where applicable

A strong, targeted set of Points of Dispute demonstrates diligence and credibility – and increases your chances of a favourable outcome.

9. Offer to Settle Early, and Sensibly

Under CPR 47.20, the receiving party is usually entitled to the costs of the detailed assessment proceedings – unless they fail to beat an earlier offer.

That’s why making a reasonable offer of settlement early on can be an effective tactic. It signals a willingness to resolve the matter without further expense, and if the receiving party refuses and fails to secure more, the paying party may recover its own assessment costs.

This is especially useful before significant assessment costs have accrued (e.g. prior to Points of Reply being drafted), and it often encourages a more pragmatic approach from both sides.

A Tactical and Thorough Approach Pays Off

Challenging excessive legal fees isn’t about nitpicking minor items – it’s about ensuring that the receiving party meets their burden of proof and that only reasonable, proportionate costs are paid.

From examining the funding arrangement to dissecting the Bill of Costs, each stage presents an opportunity to reduce liability. A structured, evidence-led approach backed by a solid understanding of the CPR can yield substantial savings.

Whether you’re a paying party or acting on their behalf, don’t treat the Bill of Costs as final. Challenge it – cleverly, confidently, and with purpose.