On 5th September 2025, Deputy Costs Judge Joseph handed down his reserved judgment in the ongoing detailed assessment between William and Alexander Stockler and the Corporation of the Hall of Arts and Sciences, the operator of the Royal Albert Hall (Stockler & Anor v The Corporation of the Hall of the Arts and Sciences [2025] EWHC 2262 (SCCO) (05 September 2025)

What began as a modest contractual dispute worth little more than £3,000, ended with the Hall successfully recovering over £120,000 in legal costs. For solicitors and costs practitioners, the case is a goldmine of guidance on proportionality, the importance of properly drafted Points of Dispute, and the reasonableness of instructing London 2 solicitors. 

Background to the case

The claim arose when the Stocklers, father and son and permanent seat-holders at the Royal Albert Hall, challenged the Hall’s calculation of payments due under the TRS. The Hall defended the claim and counterclaimed for declaratory relief.

In February 2023, Deputy District Judge Kirby KC gave summary judgment for the Hall on the issue of contractual interpretation and stayed the remaining issues to allow the parties to agree an account. Costs were awarded against the claimants on the standard basis. The case was allocated to the fast track, not the small claims track, which would prove important later.

The litigation continued, and in May 2024 DJ Mauger dismissed the remainder of the Stocklers’ claim, granted judgment for the Hall on its counterclaim in the sum of £3,054.24, and ordered the claimants to pay the Hall’s costs: on the standard basis up to 8 June 2023 and on the indemnity basis thereafter, due to their unreasonable conduct.

The Hall then commenced detailed assessment proceedings, serving a bill totalling £162,789.37. 

The Detailed Assessment

The matter came before Deputy Costs Judge Joseph across four days in June and August 2025. Following the line-by-line exercise, the Hall’s costs were assessed at £120,513.88. Part 1 of the bill, which covered the period up to June 2023 and fell to be assessed on the standard basis, was reduced to £55,581.38. This represented a 27% reduction from what had been claimed, which the Judge noted was significant but not unusual in a standard basis assessment.

Two key issues arose during the assessment. First, the claimants argued that the Hall should not have instructed solicitors outside its local area. Applying Wraith v Sheffield Forgemasters Ltd, the Judge concluded it was reasonable to instruct a London 2 firm. This inevitably carried higher rates, but that in itself could not render the costs disproportionate.

Second, the parties clashed over the appropriate fee-earner grade. The Judge held that a grade B was suitable for day-to-day work on Part 1 of the bill, with grade A justified in Part 2 (the indemnity costs period). 

The proportionality challenge

The most significant issue was whether the £55,000 allowed for Part 1 was proportionate. The Stocklers argued that because the monetary value of their claim was around £3,000, proportionate costs should have been capped at £8,100, calculated by applying arbitrary multiples of the claim value and adding modest uplifts for non-monetary relief and conduct. The Judge rejected this approach as fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with West & Demouilpied v Stockport NHS FT.

Instead, he emphasised that proportionality requires consideration of all relevant factors, not just the sums in issue. In this case, those factors included the claim for an account (a significant non-monetary element), the complexity of contractual construction, the volume of interlocutory applications, and the potential reputational impact on the Hall if the claim succeeded. The Hall’s role as the operator of a national institution, coupled with the prospect of further claims from other seat-holders, justified a serious and robust defence.

Points of Dispute and Ainsworth

A large number of the Stocklers’ Points of Dispute were dismissed as inadequately particularised, in line with the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP. The Judge held that it would be unfair for the claimants to revive those failed challenges indirectly by invoking proportionality as a “back door” means of reduction.

Outcome and key takeaways

Deputy Costs Judge Joseph concluded that the assessed figure of £55,581.38 for Part 1 was both reasonable and proportionate. No further reduction was made. The Hall therefore succeeded in recovering a total of £120,513.88.

For practitioners, the case highlights several practical lessons:

• Points of Dispute must be properly particularised. Generic or inadequately drafted objections risk being struck out and cannot later be repackaged as proportionality arguments.
• Reasonable solicitor choice matters. Where it is justifiable to instruct a London 2 firm, the higher rates that follow will not be disproportionate simply by reason of geography.
• Proportionality is multi-factorial. The court will consider complexity, reputational risk, and the nature of the relief sought alongside the sums in issue.
• Standard basis assessments often yield significant reductions, but once the line-by-line process has been undertaken, the courts are reluctant to impose further cuts unless the overall figure is manifestly disproportionate.

This judgment underlines the need for careful strategy on both sides of detailed assessments. Paying parties must invest in precise and credible Points of Dispute, while receiving parties should be prepared to defend the reasonableness of their solicitor choices and the proportionality of their costs in a holistic way.

How ARC Costs can Assist with Legal Costs Disputes

At ARC Costs, we specialise in supporting both receiving and paying parties through every stage of the costs process. Cases like Stockler show just how high the stakes can be, even where the underlying claim is modest.

• For receiving parties, we prepare robust, compliant bills of costs, defend challenges effectively, and argue proportionality issues with the latest case law at hand.
• For paying parties, we draft properly particularised Points of Dispute, identify genuine proportionality arguments, and protect you from the risk of excessive recovery.
• We also advise on strategic settlement, helping to avoid drawn-out assessments that escalate costs further.

Whether you are faced with a high-value bill or want to maximise your recovery, our team ensures your position is advanced with precision and expertise.

If you would like more information on any of our services or wish to speak to a member of our expert costs team about your legal costs, then please do not hesitate to contact us. Please call one of our independent experts at 01204 397302, or email one of our costs experts direct on info@arccosts.co.uk.

Follow Us