Where the court is assessing costs payable under a contract, it may make an order that all or part of the costs payable under the contract shall be disallowed if it is satisfied by the paying party that costs have been unreasonably incurred or are unreasonable in amount.

A trustee or personal representative is entitled to an indemnity out of the relevant trust fund or estate for costs properly incurred, which may include costs awarded against the trustee or personal representative in favour of another party.

Whether costs were properly incurred depends on all the circumstances of the case, and may, for example, depend on –

(1)	whether the trustee or personal representative obtained directions from the court before bringing or defending the proceedings;

(2)	whether the trustee or personal representative acted in the interests of the fund or estate or in substance for a benefit other than that of the estate, including his own; and

(3)	whether the trustee or personal representative acted in some way unreasonably in bringing or defending, or in the conduct of, the proceedings.

The trustee or personal representative is not to be taken to have acted in substance for a benefit other than that of the fund by reason only that he has defended a claim in which relief is sought against him personally.

The circumstances in which the court need not order the assessment of costs under rule 48.5(3) are as follows:

(a)	where there is no need to do so to protect the interests of the child or protected party or his estate;

(b)	where another party has agreed to pay a specified sum in respect of the costs of the child or protected party and the solicitor acting for the child or protected party has waived the right to claim further costs;

(c)	where the court has decided the costs payable to the child or protected party by way of summary assessment and the solicitor acting for the child or protected party has waived the right to claim further costs;

(d)	where an insurer or other person is liable to discharge the costs which the child or protected party would otherwise be liable to pay to his solicitor and the court is satisfied that the insurer or other person is financially able to discharge those costs.

In order to qualify as an expert for the purpose of rule 48.6(3)(c) (expert assistance in connection with assessing the claim for costs), the person in question must be a

(1)	barrister,

(2)	solicitor,

(3)	Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives,

(4)	Fellow of the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen,

(5)	law costs draftsman who is a member of the Academy of Experts,

(6)	law costs draftsman who is a member of the Expert Witness Institute.

Where a litigant in person wishes to prove that he has suffered financial loss he should produce to the court any written evidence he relies on to support that claim, and serve a copy of that evidence on any party against whom he seeks costs at least 24 hours before the hearing at which the question may be decided.

Where a litigant in person commences detailed assessment proceedings under rule 47.6 he should serve copies of that written evidence with the notice of commencement.

The amount, which may be allowed to a litigant in person under rule 46.3(5)(b) and rule 48.6(4), is £9.25 per hour.

Attention is drawn to rule 48.6(6)(b). A solicitor who, instead of acting for himself, is represented in the proceedings by his firm or by himself in his firm name, is not, for the purpose of the Civil Procedure Rules, a litigant in person.

Rule 48.7 deals with wasted costs orders against legal representatives. Such orders can be made at any stage in the proceedings up to and including the proceedings relating to the detailed assessment of costs. In general, applications for wasted costs are best left until after the end of the trial.

The court may make a wasted costs order against a legal representative on its own initiative.

A party may apply for a wasted costs order –

(1)	by filing an application notice in accordance with Part 23; or

(2)	by making an application orally in the course of any hearing.

It is appropriate for the court to make a wasted costs order against a legal representative, only if –

(1)	the legal representative has acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently;

(2)	his conduct has caused a party to incur unnecessary costs, and

(3)	it is just in all the circumstances to order him to compensate that party for the whole or part of those costs.

The court will give directions about the procedure that will be followed in each case in order to ensure that the issues are dealt with in a way which is fair and as simple and summary as the circumstances permit.

As a general rule the court will consider whether to make a wasted costs order in two stages –

(1)	in the first stage, the court must be satisfied – (a)   that it has before it evidence or other material which, if unanswered, would be likely to lead to a wasted costs order being made; and (b)   the wasted costs proceedings are justified notwithstanding the likely costs involved.

(2)	at the second stage (even if the court is satisfied under paragraph (1)) the court will consider, after giving the legal representative an opportunity to give reasons why the court should not make a wasted costs order, whether it is appropriate to make a wasted costs order in accordance with paragraph 53.4 above.

On an application for a wasted costs order under Part 23 the court may proceed to the second stage described in paragraph 53.6 without first adjourning the hearing if it is satisfied that the legal representative has already had a reasonable opportunity to give reasons why the court should not make a wasted costs order. In other cases the court will adjourn the hearing before proceeding to the second stage.

On an application for a wasted costs order under Part 23 the application notice and any evidence in support must identify –

(1)	what the legal representative is alleged to have done or failed to do; and

(2)	the costs that he may be ordered to pay or which are sought against him.

A wasted costs order is an order –

(1)	that the legal representative pay a specified sum in respect of costs to a party; or

(2)	for costs relating to a specified sum or items of work to be disallowed.

Attention is drawn to rule 44.3A(1) and (2) which respectively prevent the court from assessing any additional liability until the conclusion of the proceedings (or the part of the proceedings) to which the funding arrangement relates, and set out the orders the court may make at the conclusion of the proceedings.

A client and his solicitor may agree whatever terms they consider appropriate about the payment of the solicitor’s charges for his services. If however, the costs are of an unusual nature (either in amount or in the type of costs incurred) those costs will be presumed to have been unreasonably incurred unless the solicitor satisfies the court that he informed the client that they were unusual and, where the costs relate to litigation, that he informed the client they might not be allowed on an assessment of costs between the parties. That information must have been given to the client before the costs were incurred.

Rule 48.10 and Section 56 of this Practice Direction deal with the procedure to be followed for obtaining the assessment of a solicitor’s bill pursuant to an order under Part III of the Solicitors Act 1974.

If a party fails to comply with the requirements of rule 48.10 concerning the service of a breakdown of costs or points of dispute, any other party may apply to the court in which the detailed assessment hearing should take place for an order requiring compliance with rule 48.10. If the court makes such an order, it may –

(a)	make it subject to conditions including a condition to pay a sum of money into court; and

(b)	specify the consequence of failure to comply with the order or a condition.

The paragraphs in this section apply to orders made under Part III of the Solicitors Act 1974^Acts for the assessment of costs. In these paragraphs ‘client’ includes any person entitled to make an application under Part III of that Act.

The procedure for obtaining an order under Part III of the Solicitors Act 1974^Acts is by the alternative procedure for claims under Part 8, as modified by rule 67.3 and the Practice Direction^pdp-67supplementing Part 67. Precedent J of the Schedule of Costs Precedents annexed to this Practice Direction is a model form of claim form. The application must be accompanied by the bill or bills in respect of which assessment is sought, and, if the claim concerns a conditional fee agreement, a copy of that agreement. If the original bill is not available a copy will suffice.

Model forms of order, which the court may make, are set out in Precedents K, L and M of the Schedule of Costs Precedents annexed to this Practice Direction.

Attention is drawn to the time limits within which the required steps must be taken: i.e. the solicitor must serve a breakdown of costs within 28 days of the order for costs to be assessed, the client must serve points of dispute within 14 days after service on him of the breakdown, and any reply must be served within 14 days of service of the points of dispute.

The breakdown of costs referred to in rule 48.10 is a document which contains the following information:

(a)	details of the work done under each of the bills sent for assessment; and

(b)	in applications under Section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974Acts, an account showing money received by the solicitor to the credit of the client and sums paid out of that money on behalf of the client but not payments out which were made in satisfaction of the bill or of any items which are claimed in the bill.

Precedent P of the Schedule of Costs Precedents annexed to this Practice Direction is a model form of breakdown of costs. A party who is required to serve a breakdown of costs must also serve –

(1)	copies of the fee notes of counsel and of any expert in respect of fees claimed in the breakdown, and

(2)	written evidence as to any other disbursement which is claimed in the breakdown and which exceeds £250.

The provisions relating to default costs certificates (rule 47.11) do not apply to cases to which rule 48.10 applies.

Points of dispute should, as far as practicable, be in the form complying with paragraphs 35.1 to 35.7.

The time for requesting a detailed assessment hearing is within 3 months after the date of the order for the costs to be assessed.

The form of request for a hearing date must be in Form N258C. The request must be accompanied by copies of –

(a)	the order sending the bill or bills for assessment;

(b)	the bill or bills sent for assessment;

(c)	the solicitor’s breakdown of costs and any invoices or accounts served with that breakdown;

(d)	a copy of the points of dispute, annotated as necessary in order to show which items have been agreed and their value and to show which items remain in dispute;

(e)	as many copies of the points of dispute so annotated as there are other parties to the proceedings to whom the court should give details of the assessment hearing requested;

(f)	a copy of any replies served;

(g)	a statement signed by the party filing the request or his legal representative giving the names and addresses for service of all parties to the proceedings.

The request must include an estimate of the length of time the detailed assessment hearing will take.

On receipt of the request for a detailed assessment hearing the court will fix a date for the hearing or if the costs judge or district judge so decides, will give directions or fix a date for a preliminary appointment.

Unless the court directs otherwise the solicitor must file with the court the papers in support of the bill not less than 7 days before the date for the detailed assessment hearing and not more than 14 days before that date.

Once the detailed assessment hearing has ended it is the responsibility of the legal representative appearing for the solicitor or, as the case may be, the solicitor in person to remove the papers filed in support of the bill.

A final costs certificate will include an order to pay the sum it certifies unless the court orders otherwise.

In this section ‘the previous rules’ means the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 (‘RSC’) or County Court Rules 1981 (‘CCR’), as appropriate.

Where an order was made in county court proceedings before 26th April 1999 under which the costs were allowed on Scale 1 or the lower scale, the general presumption is that no costs will be allowed under that order which would not have been allowed in a taxation before 26th April 1999.

The amount to be allowed as fixed costs for making or opposing an application for a rehearing to set aside a judgment given before 26th April 1999 where the costs are on lower scale is £11.25.

In respect of bills of costs provisionally taxed before 26th April 1999:

(1)	The previous rules apply on the question who can request a hearing and the time limits for doing so; and

(2)	The CPR govern any subsequent hearing in that case.

Where a bill of costs was taxed before 26th April 1999, the previous rules govern the steps which can be taken to challenge that taxation.

a funding arrangement is entered into, and proceedings are started in respect of a claim which is the subject of that agreement.