In Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers [2023] EWHC 827 (SCCO 4 April 2023) Costs Judge Rowley emphasised the often overlooked but obvious point that the GHR are the starting point;

‘provided predominantly to assist judges who do not specialise in costs cases to deal with a summary assessment of costs….the relevance of GHR being a starting point in detailed assessments is no more than the scarcity of any other starting point…But a starting point by its very name does not suggest it is a finishing point and that is particularly so where the court has the opportunity for the parties to address it in detail in respect of the CPR 44.4 factors’

The last sentence being a reference to the decision of Males LJ in Samsung Electronics Co Ltd & Ors v LG Display Ltd & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 466 and Birss LJ in Athena Capital Fund SICAV-FIS SCA & Ors v Secretariat of State for the Holy See [2022] EWCA Civ 1061.

In the Samsung case Males LJ had stated that

‘ … if a rate in excess of the guideline rate is to be charged to the paying party, a clear and compelling justification must be provided…

Costs Judge Rowley addressed this point, stating that:

‘I do not, however, consider that the guidance given by Males LJ for the need for a clear and compelling justification for exceeding the GHR extends with any great force to this particular situation’

Rates of between £460 and £490 were allowed for the most senior fee earners against a guideline London 2 rate of £373.

In Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers [2023] EWHC 827 (SCCO 4 April 2023) Costs Judge Rowley emphasised the often overlooked but obvious point that the GHR are the starting point;

‘provided predominantly to assist judges who do not specialise in costs cases to deal with a summary assessment of costs….the relevance of GHR being a starting point in detailed assessments is no more than the scarcity of any other starting point…But a starting point by its very name does not suggest it is a finishing point and that is particularly so where the court has the opportunity for the parties to address it in detail in respect of the CPR 44.4 factors’

The last sentence being a reference to the decision of Males LJ in Samsung Electronics Co Ltd & Ors v LG Display Ltd & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 466 and Birss LJ in Athena Capital Fund SICAV-FIS SCA & Ors v Secretariat of State for the Holy See [2022] EWCA Civ 1061.

In the Samsung case Males LJ had stated that

‘ … if a rate in excess of the guideline rate is to be charged to the paying party, a clear and compelling justification must be provided…

Costs Judge Rowley addressed this point, stating that:

‘I do not, however, consider that the guidance given by Males LJ for the need for a clear and compelling justification for exceeding the GHR extends with any great force to this particular situation’

Rates of between £460 and £490 were allowed for the most senior fee earners against a guideline London 2 rate of £373.