Stockler v Royal Albert Hall: proportionality in costs assessments after West guidance

The recent Senior Courts Costs Office decision in Stockler v The Corporation of the Hall of The Arts and Sciences [2025] EWHC 2262 (SCCO) provides valuable clarification on applying proportionality principles in costs assessments, particularly where claims involve both monetary and non-monetary relief.

Background and procedural history

The case concerned a dispute between Royal Albert Hall permanent seat holders and the Hall's operating corporation over amendments to the Ticket Return Scheme. Despite the monetary element being approximately £3,000, Deputy District Judge Kirby KC allocated the matter to the fast track rather than the small claims track, recognising the complexity of the contractual interpretation required.

Following summary judgement applications and subsequent hearings, costs were ordered on the standard basis until 8 June 2023, then on the indemnity basis thereafter due to the claimants' unreasonable conduct. The defendant's bill totalled £162,789.37, with £55,581.38 attributable to the standard basis period.

The proportionality challenge

The claimants argued that costs of £55,000 for a £3,000 claim were manifestly disproportionate. They proposed a formulaic approach: calculating between one and a half to two times the monetary value, adding amounts for non-monetary relief and conduct issues, arriving at a "proportionate" figure of £8,100.

Deputy Costs Judge Joseph firmly rejected this mathematical approach, emphasising that West and Demouilpied v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust [2019] Costs LR 1265 provides no authority for applying arbitrary multiples to claim values.

Application of CPR 44.3(5) factors

The court considered all relevant proportionality factors systematically:

Complexity and skill required: The case involved contractual interpretation requiring specific legal expertise. The court had already determined that instructing a London firm was reasonable, and such instruction inevitably carried higher costs.

Non-monetary relief value: Whilst difficult to quantify precisely, the court accepted the fast track allocation suggested an overall claim value approaching £25,000 when considering both monetary and account elements.

Conduct and wider factors: Although the claimants' conduct wasn't unreasonable during the standard basis period, they "fought hard" throughout. The court recognised the defendant's legitimate concerns about reputational damage and potential similar claims from other seat holders.

Track allocation significance: The judgement clarifies that parties cannot rely on their own track allocation expectations to limit costs exposure. The DDJ's decision to allocate to the fast track despite the modest monetary claim reflected the case's true complexity and unsuitability for the small claims procedure.

Points of dispute failures

A significant factor in rejecting further proportionality reductions was the claimants' failure to properly particularise their Points of Dispute. Many challenges were dismissed under Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 178 principles for being insufficiently detailed.

Deputy Costs Judge Joseph held it would be "inherently unfair" to allow claimants to achieve through proportionality arguments what they failed to accomplish through proper dispute procedures—essentially obtaining reductions "through the back door".

Key practical implications

The decision reinforces that proportionality assessments require careful analysis of all CPR 44.3(5) factors rather than formulaic calculations. The modest monetary value of a claim cannot automatically cap reasonable costs where other factors justify higher expenditure.

The judgement emphasises the importance of properly particularising Points of Dispute, warning that inadequate challenges may undermine subsequent proportionality arguments. Courts will not permit procedural failures to be circumvented through alternative reduction routes.

Most significantly, the case demonstrates that complex legal issues requiring specialist expertise may justify substantial costs even where monetary stakes appear modest, particularly when non-monetary relief and wider implications are properly valued.

The £55,581.38 costs were ultimately held proportionate after a 27% reduction through line-by-line assessment, illustrating that detailed examination of reasonableness and proportionality during assessment can eliminate the need for further reductions.