To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
2 thoughts on “Supreme Court guideline hourly rates”
Hi Simon
Don’t get too excited about reading back the Supreme Court’s practice on guideline rates to lower courts
I was instructed on a Supreme Court assessment recently and had a long chat with the assessing officer.
He candidly told me that his and his colleagues views are considered mean by the SCCO Masters.
He advised they stick rigidly to the guideline so far as solicitors ae concerned.
This is on the basis that by the time a matter gets to the Supreme Court the solicitor is little more than a post box with counsel doing all the donkey work.
That is correct and hence so far as a solicitor’s involvement and responsibility is concerned it is at or about the level of a simple fast track matter.
Hence application of guideline rates
Nice try on behalf of Defendants
We Claimant types are not shivvering in our beds on our multitrack cases in seeking above guideline
Kevyn Thompson
Abacus Legal Costs Limited
Hastings
Yep – Kevyn is right. The taxing clerks in the House of Lords often used to refuse to allow more than token amounts at grade A rates. The thing is that the Supreme Court only takes points of law, so there is limited solicitors’ work (unless there is solicitor advocacy) other than grade C/D bundle preparation and legal research.