SIGN UP TO OUR FREE COSTS NEWSLETTER
The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has published its interim report, which makes recommendations on two main issues:
A new Guideline Rate for Complex, Commercial Work; and
Guideline Rates for Counsel.
The CJC can only make recommendations, so it will be up to rule makers to decide which recommendations (if any) are taken forward. However, stakeholders are encouraged to engage to ensure their voices are heard.
What has the Civil Justice Council recommended?
In terms of the Higher Band for Complex, Commercial Work the CJC has said:
Lack of evidence - The CJC acknowledge there is a lack of evidence at present “to reach any provisional views about the rate at which the newer higher band might be set”.
Is it even needed? - The CJC noted that several consultation responses suggested the current regime already allows for departures from Guideline Hourly Rates (GHR) in exceptional cases, meaning there may not be a sufficient evidential basis to introduce a new higher band. Some also raised concerns around access to justice.
Turning to the issue of Guideline Rates for Counsel the CJC has said:
They should be introduced - The CJC takes the view that it is “both possible and desirable” to introduce Guideline Hourly Rates for Counsel.
Lack of evidence - There is currently limited evidence regarding what and how barristers charge. The CJC have invited respondents to provide evidence on the level of counsel’s fee charged. They say they will “draw on the results of the Bar Council’s annual earnings survey” and “whether the survey’s practice groupings and seniority brackets are appropriate for GHR purposes”.
How should the data be grouped? - The CJC are consider whether it appropriate to group Counsel’s GHRs by:
“General Civil” which will include Personal Injury, Employment, Immigration, residential Landlord and Tenant, professional negligence, public law and other common law and
“Commerical/Chancery” which includes admiralty, chancery, competition, construction, European, insolvency, IP, international and non-residential landlord and tenant and revenue.
Brief fees and refreshers - It is acknowledged that brief fees and refreshers are usually negotiated as a lump sum rather than the number of anticipated hours. The consultation asks how GHRs should apply to trial preparation and refreshers.
What questions are asked?
On the higher band for complex, high value commercial work, the consultation asks:
Do you agree that the proposed definition of ‘Band 1A’ as “extremely complex, high value commercial and corporate litigate” adequately identifies the cases that should fall within the new higher band, and if not what alternative wording you’d suggest.
A call for evidence about completed inter partes cases where rates about London 1 have been awarded.
Any others matters on which you’d like to give evidence concerning the proposed new higher band.
Concerning Guideline Rates for Counsel, the consultation asks:
A call for evidence to the extent to which hourly rates dictate the level of counsel’s fees charged for a) written work, b) hearings (other than trials) and c) trial fees (briefs and refreshers)
Is the proposed grouping into “commercial/chancery” and “general civil” appropriate?
Is the allocation of practice areas used in the Bar Survey appropriate for determining GHRs?
A call for evidence of what barristers charge for separate areas of work and the level of call of the barrister(s) concerned.
How GHRs should apply to trial preparation and refreshers?
Whether respondents have any concerns about the use of the Working Live Survey (WLS) data in setting GHRs for barristers?
Are there any other matters concerning counsel’s GHRs not covered above?
Note on Question 6 the WLS data is included as an Appendix in the CJC’s interim report. It shows that average hourly rates charged by Counsel in commercial matters is as follows:
0-6 years call - £250
7-14 years call - £370
15+ years call - £420
KC - £800
Whilst in general litigation matters, the averages are:
0-6 years call - £190
7-14 years call - £270
15+ years call - £300
KC - £540
While by no means determinative, it provides an interesting comparison against hourly rates charged in practice and may give an indication as to how the CJC ultimately determines what the appropriate GHRs for Counsel may be, particularly if there continues to be a lack of data.
How can I respond to the consultation?
The consultation closes on 19 January 2027 at 23:59.
The CJC state that you do not need to answer all questions and can simply respond to those which are of interest or relevance.
Responses should be sent in writing by PDF or Word document to CJC.Costs.Consultation@Judiciary.uk and any responses to the Call for Evidence should be completed via the forms outlined on the consultation cover sheet, and on the CJC's website. Respondents must complete and submit the cover sheet with their response.
The CJC Report and Response documents are available here.
If you have any questions about the consultation or submission process then you can contact the CJC directly via CJC@judiciary.uk.
We are always happy to discuss any aspect of costs. If you have any issues or concerns over the court fee changes then please get in touch for an informal chat - call 01482 534567 or email info@carterburnett.co.uk