A fascinating judgment from the SCCO in Stockler & Anor v The Corporation of the Hall of The Arts and Sciences [2025] EWHC 2262 (SCCO) is a timely reminder that proportionality in litigation costs is about much more than the numbers on the claim form.

The claim—centred on the operation of a ticket return scheme for permanent seat holders at the Royal Albert Hall—had a monetary value of just £3,200. But Deputy Costs Judge Joseph upheld standard basis costs of £55,581.38, rejecting arguments that this was disproportionate.

Why? Because litigation is about context. The case touched on:

⚙️ Contractual complexity – including summary judgment on interpretation.
🧾 Non-monetary relief – particularly a claim for an account.
📈 Reputational risk – with potential implications for hundreds of seat holders.
📍 Fast track allocation – a clear judicial signal that this was no “small claim”.
The Court applied the modern two-stage proportionality test outlined in West v Stockport NHS FT, and firmly rejected the claimant’s “multiplier” approach to cost reduction. It found that the work done—defending the claim, drafting a counterclaim, preparing for multiple hearings—was entirely justified and proportionate given the scope and implications.

🧠 Key Takeaway: Don’t assume a low claim value will cap your exposure to costs. Proportionality is multifactorial—litigants must consider complexity, conduct, relief sought, and reputational stakes. This judgment is a textbook application of CPR 44.3 and 44.4.

A valuable decision for litigators, costs lawyers, and clients alike.

A fascinating judgment from the SCCO in Stockler & Anor v The Corporation of the Hall of The Arts and Sciences [2025] EWHC 2262 (SCCO) is a timely reminder that proportionality in litigation costs is about much more than the numbers on the claim form.

The claim—centred on the operation of a ticket return scheme for permanent seat holders at the Royal Albert Hall—had a monetary value of just £3,200. But Deputy Costs Judge Joseph upheld standard basis costs of £55,581.38, rejecting arguments that this was disproportionate.

Why? Because litigation is about context. The case touched on:

⚙️ Contractual complexity – including summary judgment on interpretation.
🧾 Non-monetary relief – particularly a claim for an account.
📈 Reputational risk – with potential implications for hundreds of seat holders.
📍 Fast track allocation – a clear judicial signal that this was no “small claim”.
The Court applied the modern two-stage proportionality test outlined in West v Stockport NHS FT, and firmly rejected the claimant’s “multiplier” approach to cost reduction. It found that the work done—defending the claim, drafting a counterclaim, preparing for multiple hearings—was entirely justified and proportionate given the scope and implications.

🧠 Key Takeaway: Don’t assume a low claim value will cap your exposure to costs. Proportionality is multifactorial—litigants must consider complexity, conduct, relief sought, and reputational stakes. This judgment is a textbook application of CPR 44.3 and 44.4.

A valuable decision for litigators, costs lawyers, and clients alike.