Introduction

For costs professionals in England and Wales, reductions on detailed assessment are nothing new. Yet despite decades of guidance, case law, and increasingly sophisticated cost drafting tools, Bills of Costs continue to be reduced — often in predictable ways.

What’s striking is not that reductions occur, but that many arise from the same recurring issues. These are not obscure points of law or novel arguments, but practical drafting and presentation problems that assessing officers and Costs Judges see time and again.

This article looks at the most common reasons Bills of Costs are still being reduced on assessment, and what Costs Draftsmen and Costs Lawyers can do to minimise avoidable cuts.

1. Inadequate or generic narratives

One of the most frequent causes of reduction remains poor narrative drafting.

Narratives that are:

• Generic

• Over-reliant on precedent wording

• Light on explanation

• Detached from the specifics of the case

continue to attract scrutiny and reduction.

Assessing officers are not simply looking to see what was done — they are assessing why the work was necessary, reasonable, and proportionate. Narratives that read as formulaic or interchangeable between cases invite scepticism.

This is particularly acute where:

• Work falls outside standard procedural steps

• The case involves unusual complexity

• The bill relies on escape fee justification

• Significant time is claimed for correspondence or preparation

A clear, case-specific narrative remains one of the strongest tools available to costs professionals — and its absence is one of the quickest ways to lose recoverable costs.

2. Proportionality still misunderstood (or under-addressed)

Despite being firmly embedded in costs law, proportionality remains a common battleground.

Bills are still reduced where:

• The total costs appear disproportionate to the value, importance or complexity of the matter

• There is no meaningful attempt to address proportionality within the bill

• The narrative focuses solely on time spent, rather than outcome or necessity

A common mistake is assuming that reasonableness automatically satisfies proportionality. Courts have repeatedly confirmed that it does not.

Costs professionals who fail to confront proportionality head-on — particularly in higher-value or document-heavy bills — leave the door open for significant reductions.

3. Excessive or poorly justified fee earner grades

Another perennial issue is fee earner grade justification.

Reductions frequently arise where:

• Senior fee earners are used for routine tasks

• There is limited explanation for delegation choices

• Grade A or B rates are claimed without sufficient complexity to justify them

Assessing officers expect to see:

• Appropriate delegation

• Rational allocation of work

• Clear justification where senior involvement is necessary

Bills that appear top-heavy or lacking evidence of delegation are particularly vulnerable, regardless of how well the time is recorded.

4. Over-reliance on time recording without analysis

Accurate time recording is essential — but time entries alone do not win assessments.

A recurring issue is bills that:

• Simply reproduce time records without analysis

• Fail to group or rationalise related work

• Do not address duplication or overlap

Assessing officers are not obliged to reconstruct a case narrative from raw time entries. Where the bill fails to guide the reader through the work logically, reductions often follow.

This is especially problematic in:

• Long-running litigation

• Multi-fee-earner matters

• Cases with significant correspondence or disclosure

Effective drafting involves interpreting time records, not just presenting them.

5. Poor treatment of correspondence and attendance items

Correspondence and attendances remain among the most heavily reduced categories on assessment.

Common issues include:

• Excessive routine correspondence

• Multiple attendances for matters that could reasonably be grouped

• Lack of explanation for frequency or length

Assessing officers regularly comment on:

• Emails that could have been consolidated

• Telephone calls that add little discernible value

• Attendances that are insufficiently explained

Without a narrative that demonstrates necessity and progression, these items are often reduced as a matter of course.

6. Failure to align the bill with the procedural history

Bills that are disconnected from the procedural reality of the case are particularly vulnerable.

Reductions often arise where:

• Claimed work does not align with the case timetable

• Work is claimed that appears unnecessary given the outcome

• There is no explanation for aborted or duplicated work

Assessing officers expect the bill to reflect the actual course of proceedings, including changes in direction, settlement dynamics, and procedural developments.

Where that alignment is missing, reductions follow quickly.

7. Weak handling of documents and preparation time

Claims for document review, preparation and trial preparation are another common reduction point.

Problems arise where:

• Time claimed appears excessive for the volume of documents

• There is no breakdown or explanation of preparation tasks

• Preparation time is claimed late in the case without context

Assessing officers increasingly expect:

• Proportionality between document volume and time claimed

• Clear differentiation between routine and complex preparation

• Transparency in how preparation time was spent

Vague or blanket claims in this area are unlikely to survive intact.

8. Insufficient attention to presentation and structure

Finally, the presentation of the Bill of Costs itself can influence outcomes more than many practitioners admit.

Bills that are:

• Poorly structured

• Difficult to follow

• Inconsistent in formatting or approach

create an immediate impression that can work against the receiving party.

A well-structured bill that:

• Guides the reader logically

• Highlights key issues clearly

• Anticipates points of dispute

is more likely to receive a fair and balanced assessment.

Final thoughts: reductions are often avoidable

Most reductions on assessment are not the result of controversial legal principles or unpredictable judicial reasoning. They stem from drafting, presentation and justification issues that costs professionals encounter repeatedly.

The good news is that many of these reductions are avoidable.

Clear narratives, thoughtful treatment of proportionality, sensible delegation, and disciplined presentation remain the hallmarks of strong cost drafting. While technology can support these aims, the underlying principles remain rooted in professional judgement and experience.

For Costs Draftsmen and Costs Lawyers, revisiting these fundamentals is often the most effective way to improve outcomes on assessment — and to ensure that Bills of Costs recover what they reasonably should.