Lime Technology Limited v Liverpool City Council

On 1 July 2025 my judgment was handed down in respect of the Claimant’s application for an Order establishing a Confidentiality Ring (a “CRO”).

In addition to that application there was originally an application for Specific Disclosure which was resolved without any necessity for me to reach any decision.

The Claimant seeks its costs of both applications.

The Defendant accepts that it should pay the costs of both those applications on the standard basis, but disputes the amounts claimed.

There is no dispute that the costs should be assessed on the standard basis.

The amounts at stake are substantial. The costs sought in respect of the CRO total £77,468.25, net of VAT. The costs sought in respect of the Specific Disclosure application total £90,372.45.

In each case the amount claimed for counsel’s involvement is a relatively small percentage of what is claimed: £12,110 on the CRO application and £15,035 on the Specific Disclosure application.

The remaining balance of about £140,000 is substantially in respect of solicitors’ profit costs.

On any view the amounts claimed are very high.

The Defendant’s position is that the amount claimed in respect of both applications is excessive both as to solicitors’ fees and counsel’s fees.

In respect of the latter (counsel’s fees) the Defendant suggests that a brief fee of £5,000 on each application is all that should be allowed – a total of £10,000.

I can deal with this aspect of the differences between the Parties: I have no doubt that the amounts claimed in respect of counsel’s fees are entirely reasonable.

The problem concerns the sums claimed for solicitors’ profit costs.

The hourly rates claimed are at the upper range of any possible range – the partner’s hourly rate claimed is £1,345.50 per hour; the senior associate is charged at £895.50 per hour; and the associate at £463.50. These rates are a long way from the guideline figures in the Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs.

The Defendant also submits that the number of hours are unreasonable.

The Defendant submits that a figure of £40,000 in total would be reasonable.

There is a dispute between the Parties as to the amount of money at stake in these proceedings. It is sufficient for me to note that (1) the Claimant has made clear that the contract which was not awarded to it was of great commercial importance to it; (2) the Claimant suggested that the amount at stake was in several millions of pounds; and (3) the Defendant regarded the issues as sufficiently important to retain two very distinguished King’s Counsel.

I accept the Claimant’s submission that these are high value, specialist and heavily contested proceedings.

I also accept that the Claimant’s solicitors are a large, international, firm with considerable specialist expertise and expertise in high value and complex procurement disputes.

In the event I have come to the conclusion that this is a case in which summary assessment is inappropriate. I accept that summary assessment is the norm, but it is not the answer in every case.

Here the rates claimed by the Claimant are unusual: I accept that the approach advocated by the Defendant (“London Grade 2”) is not appropriate given the importance to the Claimant of this case and the specialist nature of the claims. However I find it difficult to assess what fair rates would be.

I have in mind that whatever rates I adopt might well be treated as in effect binding on the Parties for the remainder of these two linked actions. That seems to me potentially unfair to one or other Party.

In respect of the Specific Disclosure application, I have the additional disadvantage that because the matter was eventually resolved, I did not have detailed submissions on that application.

Accordingly, I decline to summarily assess costs and order instead that the two sets of costs should be assessed by a costs judge on the standard basis.

However it seems to me that it is wholly appropriate to order a payment on account of costs. I regard the Defendant’s suggested figure of £40,000 as inadequate. In my view, an appropriate sum for a payment on account is £100,000 in all.

It is possible that it is necessary to apportion that figure between the applications: on a rough and ready basis I attribute £40,000 to the CRO application and £60,000 to the Specific Disclosure application.