The recent decision of Costs Judge Nagalingam in Diagnostics.AI Ltd v Dentons UK & Middle East LLP [2025] EWHC (SCCO) provides guidance on the court’s discretion to order inspection of a solicitor’s file in solicitor-client cost disputes under the Solicitors Act 1974. Judgment available here: https://lnkd.in/eJ98xE_6


The judgment clarifies the procedural mechanisms available to the court and reinforces the principle that transparency in costs assessments serves the overriding objective of facilitating fair and efficient dispute resolution.

Background

The dispute arose from a £2m+ costs bill rendered by Dentons to its former client, Diagnostics.AI. The Claimant had served detailed Points of Dispute (72 pages), but the Defendant’s Replies were limited to 4 pages, addressing only preliminary issues. The Claimant argued that the lack of substantive engagement left it unable to assess the reasonableness of the fees and applied for inspection of Dentons’ files relating to the billed work.

Dentons resisted, contending that:
1. The court lacked jurisdiction to order inspection at this procedural stage.
2. The application was overly broad and unnecessary.
3. Preparing files for inspection would be disproportionately costly.

Issues

The Defendant argued that CPR Part 31 (disclosure) did not apply and that inspection could only be ordered pre-Points of Dispute. Costs Judge Nagalingam rejected this, holding that:

·      The court has inherent jurisdiction to order inspection in Solicitors Act assessments (Swain, as cited in Hanley v JC&A).
·      CPR 31.12 and the court’s general case management powers (CPR 3.1(2)(p)) provide a basis for inspection where it aids settlement or narrows issues.
·      Edwards v Slater & Gordon [2022] EWHC 1091 (QB) confirmed that disclosure/inspection is a case management tool in solicitor-own client assessments.

Decision

The court found inspection justified for the following reasons:
1.     The Defendant’s Replies were minimal, leaving the Claimant unable to assess the basis of disputed fees.
2.     Inspection would either facilitate settlement or streamline the detailed assessment.
3.     The Defendant’s estimated costs of compliance were exaggerated and, in any event, outweighed by the sums in dispute.

The Judge also dismissed Dentons’ argument that inspection would be too wide or burdensome, noting that the request was limited to work described in the bills, and not the entire file; therefore any confidential or privileged material could be redacted. The Defendant’s failure to engage substantively in Replies also contributed to the need for inspection.

The recent decision of Costs Judge Nagalingam in Diagnostics.AI Ltd v Dentons UK & Middle East LLP [2025] EWHC (SCCO) provides guidance on the court’s discretion to order inspection of a solicitor’s file in solicitor-client cost disputes under the Solicitors Act 1974. Judgment available here: https://lnkd.in/eJ98xE_6


The judgment clarifies the procedural mechanisms available to the court and reinforces the principle that transparency in costs assessments serves the overriding objective of facilitating fair and efficient dispute resolution.

Background

The dispute arose from a £2m+ costs bill rendered by Dentons to its former client, Diagnostics.AI. The Claimant had served detailed Points of Dispute (72 pages), but the Defendant’s Replies were limited to 4 pages, addressing only preliminary issues. The Claimant argued that the lack of substantive engagement left it unable to assess the reasonableness of the fees and applied for inspection of Dentons’ files relating to the billed work.

Dentons resisted, contending that:
1. The court lacked jurisdiction to order inspection at this procedural stage.
2. The application was overly broad and unnecessary.
3. Preparing files for inspection would be disproportionately costly.

Issues

The Defendant argued that CPR Part 31 (disclosure) did not apply and that inspection could only be ordered pre-Points of Dispute. Costs Judge Nagalingam rejected this, holding that:

·      The court has inherent jurisdiction to order inspection in Solicitors Act assessments (Swain, as cited in Hanley v JC&A).
·      CPR 31.12 and the court’s general case management powers (CPR 3.1(2)(p)) provide a basis for inspection where it aids settlement or narrows issues.
·      Edwards v Slater & Gordon [2022] EWHC 1091 (QB) confirmed that disclosure/inspection is a case management tool in solicitor-own client assessments.

Decision

The court found inspection justified for the following reasons:
1.     The Defendant’s Replies were minimal, leaving the Claimant unable to assess the basis of disputed fees.
2.     Inspection would either facilitate settlement or streamline the detailed assessment.
3.     The Defendant’s estimated costs of compliance were exaggerated and, in any event, outweighed by the sums in dispute.

The Judge also dismissed Dentons’ argument that inspection would be too wide or burdensome, noting that the request was limited to work described in the bills, and not the entire file; therefore any confidential or privileged material could be redacted. The Defendant’s failure to engage substantively in Replies also contributed to the need for inspection.