Since under CPR r 44.3(2)(a) there may be a reduction in costs on the grounds that they are disproportionate even if those costs were reasonably or necessarily incurred, a proportionality assessment must occur at the end of the process. Having completed a detailed assessment of costs, the judge must look at the overall assessed bill and ask whether a further reduction is required on the grounds of proportionality. Costs are assessed according to a reasonableness standard with the final costs assessment then being subject to a separate and self-standing proportionality test (paras 52, 53, 56, 69).
Where, therefore, following a detailed assessment of costs on the standard basis, the paying party appealed on the ground, inter alia, that the figure the master had reached was not proportionate and he had erred in reaching it—
Held, appeal allowed. Given the narrowness and straightforwardness of the application, the costs were prima facie disproportionate and the master’s failure to make a deduction to reflect that was a clear error of law lying outside the discretion afforded by the costs rules (paras 64–65, 66, 69, 70).
Per curiam. The same approach can be adopted in relation to a summary assessment, albeit that there is no item-by-item consideration of costs (para 58).
Imran Benson (instructed directly) for the paying party.
Martyn Griffiths (instructed by Emmerson Law Ltd) for the receiving party.