Guideline Hourly Rates for Summary Assessment: Increased from 1 January 2026
With effect from 1 January 2026, Guideline Hourly Rates (“GHR”) for Summary Assessment have been increased by 2.28% under the Service Producer Price Index (“SPPI”). The last revision took effect on 1 January 2025, its predecessor on 1 October 2021, and before that, in 2010! This increase has followed a Civil Justice Council Working Group Report published on 30 July 2020 which recommended that regular revisions should be made to the rates.
That work continues. In announcing the 2026 rates, Sir Geoffrey Vos MR added that:-
“….the Civil Justice Council has established a working group to examine whether guideline hourly rates can be produced for either or both of counsels’ fees and a new top rate for complex commercial work. I look forward to receiving the Civil Justice Council’s interim report on these issues later this year.”
The Table below has been published by HM Courts and Legal Service: the rates shown are those applying from 1 January 2026, with the 2025 rates appearing in brackets. The notes indicate that work in London 1 covers “Very heavy commercial and corporate work by centrally based London firms” and is “not restricted to any particular London postcode”. London 2 covers postcodes EC1 to 4, W1, WC1, WC2 and SW1. London 3 includes all other London boroughs, plus Dartford and Gravesend. The rest of the country has a list of cities and counties to which National Band 1 and 2 rates apply.
| Grade | Fee earner | London 1 | London 2 | London 3 | National 1 | National 2 |
| A | Solicitors and legal executives with over 8 years’ experience | £579 (£566) | £422 (£413) | £319 (£312) | £295 (£288) | £288 (£282) |
| B | Solicitors and legal executives with over 4 years’ experience | £393 (£385) | £327 (£319) | £262 (£256) | £247 (£242) | £247 (£242) |
| C | Other solicitors or legal executives and fee earners of equivalent experience | £305 (299) | £276 (£269) | £209 (£204) | £201 (£197) | £200 (£196) |
| D | Trainee solicitors, paralegals and other fee earners | £210 (205) | £157 (£153) | £146 (£143) | £142 (£139) | £142 (£139) |
London Bands
| London band | Area | Postcodes |
| London 1 | Very heavy commercial and corporate work by centrally based London firms | Not restricted to any particular London postcode |
| London 2 | City and Central London | EC1 to 4, W1, WC1, WC2 and SW1 |
| London 3 | Outer London | All other London boroughs, plus Dartford and Gravesend |
Firms will doubtless consider what they should charge when costs are to be assessed summarily by the court following a trial or hearing lasting up to one day. In this eventuality, in should be remembered that it remains difficult to recover more that the GHR unless the court is persuaded that a clear and compelling justification is advanced to do so: see Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v LG Display Co Ltd [2022] Costs LR 627. It is not enough simply to submit that the case was a commercial case, or a competition case, or that it had an international element.
Contrary to popular belief in many quarters, it should also be remembered that the GHR are not the starting point when the court is deciding the appropriate hourly expense rate to allow when carrying out a detailed assessment of a successful party’s costs. In Magomedov v TPG Group Holdings (SBS) LP [2025] Costs LR 65, Bright J reminded practitioners at paragraph 8 that “…The guideline hourly rates are not used in detailed assessments….”. What the court takes into account are the factors in CPR 44.4(3), such as value, complexity, and the importance to the parties. It is those factors which are the starting point and not the GHR.
It is at this time of year that solicitors often take the opportunity to revise their hourly rates. When doing so, firms should remember to advise their clients of any increase and also to update any estimates consequential upon those adjustments. Fail to do that, and difficulties may arise later should clients take issue with bills they have received, on the basis that they were never told that rates were being raised or estimates varied upwards. That is why retainers should be subject to a regular “health check” in any well-run practice. The team at Kain Knight are happy to advise on the reviewing and updating of retainers, estimates and costs budgets following the implementation of the new GHR.
