Monthly Legal Costs Update – May 2026
Here, in Kain Knight Costs Lawyers’ regular monthly legal costs update, we focus on those cases which we believe are likely to have a practical relevance for its members. We welcome feedback and if there is an area, topic or case you would like us to address, please let us know.
This May 2026 update has been written by Nick McDonnell and Colin Campbell.
The big news in costs this month is that the judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechleys in the expedited appeal by CILEX (represented pro bono) was handed down on 31 March – see [2026] EWCA Civ 369. Vos MR, Birss, Andrews LJJ reversed the decision below (see [2026] Costs LR 2007) in which Sheldon J held that unauthorised persons could only support and assist qualified persons in the conduct of litigation (as defined in s.4(1) of Schedule 2 Legal Services Act 2007) and where delegated work was supervised, criminal offences were committed.
Happily the Court of Appeal took a pragmatic and sensible view, holding instead that the unauthorised person can lawfully perform any tasks which are within the scope of the conduct of litigation for and on behalf of an authorised individual, such as a solicitor or an appropriately authorised CILEX member. In that eventuality, the authorised individual is the person carrying on the conduct of litigation and retains responsibility for the tasks delegated to the unauthorised person.
However, it is implicit in the judgment that supervision in some solicitors’ business models has become lax over time, hence this warning. The delegation of tasks by the authorised individual to the unauthorised person requires proper management, supervision and control. That may involve an obligation on the part of the authorised individual to conduct regular meetings with the unauthorised person and to sample their work, but the details of that are a matter for the regulators. In that context, the Law Society published some guidance on 11 April.
Meanwhile, the decision has been received with alacrity in all quarters of the legal profession, save perhaps the Law Society and the Solicitors Regulation Authority; they both contested CILEX’s appeal arguing that that Sheldon J’s judgment had been correct and may now find themselves paying the costs (if sought) under a pro bono costs order in favour of the Access to Justice Foundation.
From the Court of Appeal down to the County Court, the next case is a rare reported matter involving the Fixed Costs Regime under CPR 45 in force since 1 October 1024.
In Rigley v Zurich Insurance Co (UK) Ltd 2 WLUK 855, DDJ Gibson sitting at Middlesbrough County Court held that the court has jurisdiction to reallocate a case from one band to another band after acceptance of a Part 36 offer. This was a claim for personal injuries allocated to Band 2. Dissatisfied, the defendant issued an application seeking allocation to Band 1.
Before the return date, the Claimant accepted a Part 36 offer and claimed Band 2 costs. The issue for decision therefore, was whether the court could still reallocate the case. The judge held that he could. Citing 36.14(5)(b), he held that the court has a discretion on costs and was persuaded to set aside that part of the order putting the costs into band 2 and instead to allocate the action and therefore the costs, to band 1.
Next an interesting judgment in which Fancourt J was required to decide who should pay the costs of action where the claim was not just money but involved injunctive relief.
In Cooper & Powell v Ludgate House Ltd [2026] EWHC 484 (Ch), the judge found in the Claimants’ favour, but refused to grant injunctive relief in relation to the rights to light they enjoyed appurtenant to their flats over the Defendant’s development site, granting damages in lieu. That meant that the Claimants had succeeded on two primary elements of their claims, but failed to obtain the relief that they sought. Who should pay the costs in those circumstances?
He held that Mr and Mrs Powell had comfortably beaten an offer they made in November 2024, but did not succeed in preserving their light and so were not successful on the whole of their claim. Accordingly, they were awarded two thirds of their costs.
Mr Cooper had been offered £500,000 for his claim and to release his rights to light, and was awarded £350,000 in damages, which, with interest amounted to £385,105.67. He therefore failed to beat the offer unless his rights to light were worth about £115,000. The Court could not speculate a about the value of the rights to light, nor assume that they were actually worth £115,000. It followed that Fancourt J could not conclude that the Defendant had beaten its own offer, which nevertheless, was on any view, a reasonable offer to make. The defendant was therefore ordered to pay just one third of Mr Cooper’s costs.
Next, costs in the Competitions Appeals Tribunal – see Association of Consumer Support Organisations Ltd (ACSO) v Amazon [2025] CAT 26. On 14 August 2025, the ACSO began proceedings against Amazon as the proposed class representative seeking to bring opt-out collective proceedings. Amazon applied to strike out the proceedings as an abuse of process but failed, with costs to be summarily assessed. ACSO did not serve a schedule in advance of the strike out hearing so the CAT could not deal with the costs that day.
Subsequently, ACSO submitted a schedule claiming £121,524.74 plus VAT including hourly rates at 72%-87% higher than the Guideline Hourly Rates, including £69,642.86 for three counsel. Holding that the issues on the application were not complex (albeit that ACSO’s underlying case could be described thus), a 30% uplift was appropriate. With other adjustments, such as exclusion of the costs of the attendance of the more senior partner and the junior associate at the hearing and halving the time referable to the work of the two partners and senior associate on documents, the costs were allowed at £29,983 for the solicitors, counsels’ fees of £31,069, and the costs lawyer’s fees of £1,500.
However, ACSO had the last laugh. Amazon sought total costs of £8,120 for its response to ACSO’s late costs schedule including a very significant increase on the GHR, but was not allowed any uplift, and had to be satisfied with £5,285.
Atuanya v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 758 (KB) is about discontinuance under CPR 38. It was the Claimant who had served notice under the rule and it was the Defendant’s case that he had been fundamentally dishonest and should lose the benefit of costs protection under Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (“QOCS”) which applied in personal injury claims (see CPR 44.13-44.17).
That submission was advanced on the basis that the Defendant was “plagued” by claims for damages for a non-freezing cold injury (“NFCI”) sustained while serving in the Army. On the facts, that submission was accepted and fundamental dishonesty proved, and a costs order was made against the Claimant.
Finally, family law costs.
In M (a Child) Costs Re [2026] EWCA Civ 381, the court dealt with an appeal from the decision of the judge below in private law proceedings under the Children Act 1989 (“CA”) who had ordered the appellant father to pay the respondent mother’s costs of an appeal from the magistrates which she summarily assessed in the sum of £32,723.50 plus VAT. That decision had been wrong.
The Family Procedure Rules 2010 r.28.2 disapplied the general rule in CPR r.44.2(2) that the unsuccessful party would be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party. Instead, r.28.1 simply allowed the court to make such order as to costs as it thought just. The judge had had erred in principle in distinguishing between the costs of the first instance hearing before the magistrates and the costs of the appeal. There had been no reprehensible or unreasonable conduct in relation to the proceedings.
The appeal was allowed, with the costs order being discharged and replaced with no order as to costs.
As always, these are a selection of the principal recent cases which are likely to be of use to practitioners and if any further information is required, please contact either Nick McDonnell or Colin Campbell at Nick.McDonnell@kain-knight.co.uk or Colin.Campbell@kain-knight.co.uk
