Skip to main content

Strategic Costs Negotiations That Protect Recovery

Negotiation Support for Receiving and Paying Parties

Every costs dispute turns on its own facts, procedures and risks and we tailor our negotiation strategy accordingly. When acting for receiving parties, we respond to challenges with carefully planned arguments supported by the relevant rules and authorities, presenting the claim in a way that maximises defensibility and value. Where appropriate, we also pursue meaningful interim payments to improve cash flow and reduce lock-up.

When instructed for paying parties, we analyse the bill or statement against proportionality, reasonableness and recoverability, identifying areas of genuine vulnerability in the claim. We then advance clear and robust challenges to reduce the claim to a realistic level, while keeping discussions focused on achievable settlement.

Across both roles, we have a track record of tenacity where the position requires it while remaining constructive in our approach. We prioritise building a professional rapport with opponents, which often helps secure swift, cost-effective settlements without compromising the client’s strategic objectives.

Our approach

We approach costs negotiations as a disciplined exercise in technical evaluation and commercial strategy. Our first step is always to assess the likely outcome at detailed assessment, factoring in proportionality, costs management history, conduct issues and any Part 36 implications. This allows us to identify the realistic settlement range and advise on the most effective resolution route.

For receiving parties, we craft negotiation positions that justify the costs claimed clearly and proportionately, strengthening the prospects of a favourable outcome. For paying parties, we focus on isolating costs that are excessive, unrecoverable or unsupported and we set out challenges in a way that is persuasive at both negotiation and assessment.

Part 36 plays a central role in many negotiations and we are particularly skilled in advising on when to make offers, how to pitch them strategically and how to leverage the associated benefits. We aim to position clients to obtain outcomes at least as advantageous as their offers, protecting entitlement to interest and other CPR 36 benefits where applicable.

Throughout the process, we keep clients fully informed. That includes pragmatic advice on strengths and weaknesses, the likely assessment view and the commercial trade-offs involved, enabling tailored decision-making at every stage.

Why Choose Athene Legal?

Our clients instruct us because we combine technical authority with calm, realistic judgement. We cut through complex costs issues quickly, explain the true risks and opportunities and negotiate with precision.

What sets us apart is our ability to evaluate the merits of a costs claim and the likely assessment outcome with clarity and accuracy. This enables us to pitch negotiation positions and Part 36 offers strategically, improving prospects of achieving settlement on advantageous terms. We also ensure that clients are advised in real time on any shifting dynamics and decisions are made with the best possible information.

Whether the objective is maximising recovery for a receiving party or reducing exposure for a paying party, we focus on securing settlement efficiently, without unnecessary escalation or procedural drift.

Request Consultation

Firms across the UK rely on our expertise, precision and results. Here’s what our clients say about working with us.

“I engaged Tyler at Athene Legal after scoring a significant victory at trial for a client in hotly contested and complex High Court Litigation. Tyler and his team’s work on the bill of costs was efficient and detailed, and his pragmatic and commercially focused advice assisted in the early resolution of the costs issue on sensible terms. I would be happy using Athene Legal again and would recommend them to colleagues and contacts.”

Peter BrewerClarke Willmott

“The support that they have provided in preparing our costs budgets and bills in highly complex cases has been superb. Their advice is clear, and we always feel confident in obtaining an excellent result by instructing them.”

PartnerTop 100 UK law firm

18

Highest costs case

280

Most claimants in group litigation

50

Serving over 50 top law firms

Frequently asked questions

What is a reasonable level of interim payment to request?

Where the claim for costs is reasonable and there are no concerns with regard to the proportionality of the costs, it is reasonable to seek an interim payment for 65-70% of any costs that are subject to detailed assessment and 90% of any budgeted costs that have already been approved by the court.

What is the difference between a Calderbank offer and Part 36 offer?

A Calderbank offer is headed ‘without prejudice save as to costs’. The costs consequences of Calderbank offers are governed by CPR 44. The court will have discretion over costs of assessment. A Calderbank offer provides greater flexibility than a Part 36 offer; it allows the party making the offer to be flexible when making terms about the length of time the offer remains open for acceptance, costs of assessment and payment terms.

Part 36 goes beyond Part 44 in that it sets highly prescriptive terms. Part 36 offers must be open for acceptance for at least 21 days. They also cannot be withdrawn or amended without the court’s permission. Despite the rigidness of Part 36, it provides more certainty as to how costs will be treated. The Court does not have the same level of discretion as when a Calderbank offer is made. Furthermore, where the offeror beats their own Part 36 offer at detailed or provisional assessment, they will also be entitled to the Part 36 benefits set out under CPR 36.17 in relation to costs and interest.

When will costs be adjudged disproportionate?

Where costs are assessed on the standard basis, costs incurred will be deemed disproportionate if they do not bear a reasonable relationship to the following factors:

  • The sums in issue in the proceedings;
  • The value of any non-monetary relief in issue in the proceedings;
  • The complexity of the litigation;
  • Any additional work generated by the conduct of the paying party; and
  • Any wider factors involved in the proceedings, such as reputation or public importance.

How frequently do cases proceed to detailed or provisional assessment?

In most cases we are able to reach an agreement on costs. Only a very small percentage of cases proceed to detailed assessment. It is more common for cases to proceed to provisional assessment (where the costs claimed are £75,000 or less) because provisional assessments are undertaken on the papers only and the parties are not required to make oral submissions.

Get in touch

Complete a contact form

Get in touch

Request a consultation