Guideline Hourly Rates 2026: Rates Table, Bands by Town and Fee Earner Grades

The solicitors’ guideline hourly rates in effect from 1 January 2026 run from £579 an hour for a Grade A fee earner in London 1 down to £142 for a Grade D fee earner in National 1 or National 2. This guide sets out the full table, the towns, cities and counties in each band, and who counts as a Grade A, B, C or D fee earner, all taken from the official sources, and then how claimant firms should use the rates in bills, N260s, Precedent S and Points of Dispute.

Jump to: the 2026 rates table · which band is my town in? · fee earner grades A to D · the 2021, 2024 and 2025 rates

2026 Guideline Hourly Rates Table

These are the guideline hourly rates for solicitors and other fee earners in England and Wales in effect from 1 January 2026, by fee earner grade (the rows) and location band (the columns):

Source: GOV.UK, Solicitors’ guideline hourly rates (HM Courts & Tribunals Service), which describes them as “the guideline rates in effect from 1 January 2026”. The Master of the Rolls announced them on 1 January 2026 as an inflation uplift of 2.28% on the 2025 rates. The table tells you the rate once you know two things: which column applies to your office (the band) and which row applies to the fee earner (the grade). Both are set out in full below.

These figures should be used carefully.

A bill that claims Grade B rates does not automatically recover Grade B rates. The fee earner must genuinely fall within that grade and the work must be suitable for that level of fee earner. Equally, a paying party cannot simply reduce a bill because it does not like the total figure. If the rates are GHR-aligned, the grades are correct and the work was necessary, the receiving party should be ready to defend the bill.

Which Band Is My Town In? London 1–3, National 1 and National 2

The five columns in the table are location bands, and the band follows the solicitors’ office, not the court hearing the case. The Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs says the location of a fee earner is determined by reference to the office to which they are, or are predominantly, attached (para 31). The Guide defines the bands in its Appendix 2, and GOV.UK repeats the same list:

Two wording points. GOV.UK says “Sussex” where the Guide names East Sussex and West Sussex. And for Newcastle, the band list in both says “within 2m of St Nicholas Cathedral”, while GOV.UK’s A to Z entry says “within 2km”.

The qualifiers matter: only the inner or central parts of Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds and Manchester, and the listed city areas of Cambridge, Newcastle, Norwich and Nottingham, are National 1. The Guide also says the figures are grouped by locality “by way of general guidance only”, and that the rate to allow should not be determined by reference to locality or postcode alone.

Source: Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs (2021 edition), paragraph 31 and Appendix 2; GOV.UK, Solicitors’ guideline hourly rates (rates from 1 January 2026).

The most-searched places: band and 2026 rates

Each place below appears, under the name shown, in the Guide’s band list or in GOV.UK’s A to Z of areas. The rates are the 2026 figures for its band.

Every place in GOV.UK’s A to Z

GOV.UK also publishes an A to Z of areas outside London with the national band for each. Its column is headed “Grade”, but the 1 and 2 in it mean National 1 and National 2, not fee earner grades. The full list, split by band:

National 1 (67 areas): Aldershot, Amersham, Ashford, Aylesbury, Banbury, Basildon, Basingstoke, Birkenhead, Birmingham Inner, Bournemouth, Brighton, Bristol, Bury St Edmunds, Cambridge City, Canterbury, Cardiff (Inner), Chelmsford, Colchester, Crawley, Dorset, Epsom, Essex, Fareham, Farnham, Folkestone, Guildford, Hampshire, Harlow, Hastings, Havant, High Wycombe, Horsham, Hove, Ipswich, Isle of Wight, Leeds (Inner) - within 2km of City Art Gallery, Lewes, Liverpool, Lowestoft, Maidenhead, Maidstone, Manchester (Central), Medway, Milton Keynes, Newcastle - City Centre (within 2km of St Nicholas Cathedral), Norwich City, Nottingham City, Oxford, Poole, Portsmouth, Reading, Reigate, Salisbury, Sevenoaks, Slough, Southampton, Southend, Staines, Suffolk, Swindon, Thanet, Tunbridge Wells, Watford, Weymouth, Wiltshire, Winchester, Worthing.

National 2 (154 areas): Aberystwyth, Accrington, Altrincham, Barnsley, Barnstaple, Barrow-in-Furness, Bath, Bedford, Bedlington, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Beverley, Birmingham Outer, Blackburn, Blackpool, Blackwood, Bodmin, Bolton, Bootle, Boston, Bradford, Bridlington, Burnley, Bury, Caenarfon, Cambridgeshire, Cannock, Cardiff (Outer), Carlisle, Carmarthen, Cheltenham, Chester, Chesterfield, Chorley, Cornwall, Coventry, Crewe, Cumbria, Cwmbran, Darlington, Derbyshire, Devon, Dewsbury, Doncaster, Dudley, Durham, Evesham, Exeter, Fleetwood, Gateshead, Gloucester, Great Yarmouth, Grimsby, Halifax, Harrogate, Hatfield, Haverfordwest, Hereford, Hertford, Hitchin, Huddersfield, Hull, Huntingdon, Isles of Scilly, Keighley, Kidderminster, Kings Lynn, Lancaster, Leamington Spa, Leeds (Outer), Leicester, Leigh, Leyland, Lincoln, Llandrindod Wells, Llandudno, Llanelli, Loughborough, Ludlow, Luton, Manchester (Outer), Mansfield, Merthyr Tydfil, Mold, Nelson, Newcastle (other than City Centre), Newcastle under Lyme, Newport, Newton Abbot, Newton Aycliffe, Norfolk, North Shields, Northallerton, Northampton, Nottinghamshire, Nuneaton, Oldham, Oswestry, Peterborough, Peterlee, Plymouth, Pontefract, Pontypridd, Port Talbot, Prestatyn, Preston, Rawenstall, Redditch, Reedley, Ripon, Rochdale, Rugby, Salford, Scarborough, Sheffield, Shrewsbury, Skegness, Skipton, South Shields, South Yorkshire, Southport, St Albans, St Helens, Stafford, Stevenage, Stockport, Stoke, Stourbridge, Stratford-upon-Avon, Sunderland, Swansea, Tameside, Tamworth, Taunton, Teesside, Telford, Torquay, Truro, Wakefield, Wales (North), Wales (South), Wales (West), Walsall, Warrington, Warwick, Wellingborough, Welshpool, Weston-super-Mare, Wigan, Wolverhampton, Worcester, Wrexham, Yarl’s Wood, Yeovil, York.

Names are given as GOV.UK spells them; it lists Caernarfon as “Caenarfon” and Rawtenstall as “Rawenstall”. A place that is not in the A to Z is placed by the band list above: it is National 1 if it lies in one of the listed counties or is one of the listed places, and National 2 if it falls within none of London 1 to 3 and National 1. Dartford and Gravesend, although in Kent, are London 3.

London and the South: the traps

Most of the South East is National 1 by county, but the list has gaps that catch firms out. On GOV.UK’s list of places:

• Hertfordshire is not a National 1 county. Only Watford is listed, so St Albans, Hertford, Hatfield, Hitchin and Stevenage are National 2.
• Cambridgeshire: only Cambridge City is National 1, so Huntingdon and Peterborough are National 2.
• Norfolk: only Norwich City is National 1.
• The South West: Bristol and the counties of Dorset and Wiltshire are National 1, but Bath, Cheltenham, Gloucester, Exeter and Plymouth are National 2.
• Dartford and Gravesend are London 3, not National 1 with the rest of Kent.
• Middlesex is on the National 1 list of counties, but much of the historic county now lies within London boroughs, and London 3 covers “all other London boroughs”. Neither the Guide nor GOV.UK says which band applies where an office answers both descriptions.
• London 1 is not a postcode band. It is for very heavy commercial and corporate work by centrally based London firms, so a London firm’s housing disrepair or clinical negligence work is usually claimed at London 2 or London 3.

The band follows the office where the fee earner works, not the court or the client. A firm in the North suing a London borough claims its own band, and outside central London the London premium is small: at Grade A, London 3 is £319 an hour against £295 for National 1. The Guide also deals with the opposite case: where a claim has no obvious connection with London and does not need expertise found only there, a litigant who unreasonably instructs London solicitors should be allowed only the costs that would have been recoverable for the work where it should have been done (para 30, citing Wraith v Sheffield Forgemasters Ltd). For where a London detailed assessment is filed, and the other London rules, see our guide to the SCCO and costs in London.

Fee Earner Grades A to D: Who Falls in Each Grade

The rows of the table are fee earner grades. They are the Guide’s categories of fee earner for the guideline rates, not job titles, and a statement of costs has to show the grade of each fee earner (PD 44 para 9.5(2)(c)). GOV.UK’s table uses short descriptions; Appendix 2 to the Guide defines the grades in full:

Form N260 prints near-identical definitions of the four grades on the form itself. Appendix 2 to the Guide adds:

• Legal executives. “Legal executive” means a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives. Those who are not Fellows are not entitled to call themselves legal executives and, in principle, are not entitled to the same hourly rate.
• Clerks and other fee earners. Clerks without the equivalent experience of legal executives are treated as the bottom grade, Grade D. Whether a fee earner has equivalent experience is ultimately a matter for the discretion of the court.
• Costs Lawyers. Qualified Costs Lawyers are eligible for payment as Grade B or Grade C, depending on the complexity of the work done.
• Employed barristers. Their rates should be allowed at the grade that best reflects the length of their litigation experience.

Grade describes the person, but the Guide also looks at the task. Appendix 2 says that sitting behind counsel at pre-trial hearings should be delegated to a more junior fee earner in all but the most important pre-trial hearings. How a bill should evidence each fee earner’s grade is covered further down, under presenting fee earner grades.

What Are the Guideline Hourly Rates?

The guideline hourly rates are the figures the courts in England and Wales use as a starting point when assessing the solicitors’ costs one party has been ordered to pay another. They used to be published as Appendix 2 to the Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs and are now published, and updated, by HMCTS on GOV.UK. The Guide is plain about their status: they are “not scale figures” but “broad approximations only” (para 27), a starting point for summary assessment that “may also be a helpful starting point on detailed assessment” (para 28).

They are not a price list for what a solicitor charges its own client. They guide what the court allows one party to recover from another; what a firm charges its client is set by its retainer, which is why the two can differ (see the indemnity principle below). For a summary assessment, our free N260 statement of costs builder shows the 2026 guideline rate beside each fee earner as you fill in the form.

The Guideline Hourly Rates themselves are a standing reference rather than a one-off publication. They are revised periodically, and each revision replaces the last for work done from the date it takes effect. When practitioners talk about “the guideline hourly rates” without naming a year, they normally mean whichever set is currently in force — at the time of writing, the 2026 figures set out above. This guide is maintained against the current rates rather than left at the year it was first written.

There is a common mistake. Some firms treat the Guideline Hourly Rates as though they are automatic recoverable rates. Others treat them as a hard ceiling and underclaim work that was properly carried out by experienced fee earners. Both approaches are risky. The real question on assessment is not simply whether the claimed rate appears in the table, but whether the rate, grade and work done can be justified on the facts of the file.

For claimant firms, the GHR are not just a table. They are the starting point that costs negotiators on both sides work from. If the bill claims rates at or around the applicable GHR, the paying party may still challenge grade, proportionality, duplication and the level of work. If the bill claims rates above GHR, the receiving party should expect a more focused challenge and should be ready to justify the departure.

What Changed in 2026?

The 2026 rates are the 2025 rates uplifted for inflation. The Master of the Rolls’ announcement of 1 January 2026 puts the increase at 2.28%, using services producer price index (SPPI) figures up to the first quarter of 2025: Grade A in London 1 moved from £566 to £579, and in National 1 from £288 to £295. The same announcement said the Civil Justice Council had set up a working group to examine whether guideline hourly rates can be produced for counsel’s fees, for a new top rate for complex commercial work, or both.

The uplift was modest, but it still matters across a large bill. A small hourly increase can make a real difference where the file includes substantial review time, client contact, disclosure work, medical evidence, expert reports, settlement negotiations or detailed assessment preparation.

For claimant firms handling Housing Disrepair, MoD NIHL, clinical negligence and industrial disease files, the 2026 rates should be reflected in:

• bills of costs;
• electronic bills;
• Precedent S;
• N260s;
• schedule of costs;
• budgets where applicable;
• Points of Dispute replies;
• internal rate reviews; and
• settlement negotiations.

If your firm is still using older rates, you may be underclaiming. If your bill uses updated rates without explaining fee earner grade and work allocation, you may be creating easy arguments for the paying party.

Which Year’s Rates Apply to Which Work?

This is the question that causes most avoidable reductions on long files, and it has a straightforward answer: a bill normally applies the rates in force when each item of work was done, not the rates in force when the bill is drawn.

That matters because costs work in these areas routinely spans a rate change. A housing disrepair claim running from pre-action correspondence through to detailed assessment, a clinical negligence claim carried over several years, or an MoD NIHL file opened long before settlement will all cross at least one revision. The consequence is that the same fee earner may legitimately appear at more than one hourly rate in a single bill.

Two errors follow from getting this wrong, and paying parties look for both:

• Applying the current rates to historic work. Claiming today’s figures for work done under an earlier set overstates the bill, and it is easy to spot from the chronology.
• Applying historic rates to everything. The mirror image, and it quietly understates recovery on the later part of a long file. Nobody challenges it, which is why it goes unnoticed.

The practical answer is to split the rate periods in the bill and show the dates each applies to, rather than presenting one rate per fee earner across the life of the claim.

Previous Guideline Hourly Rates: 2021, 2024 and 2025

Because each item of work is charged at the rates in force when it was done, a bill on a long file needs the earlier figures as well. The 2021 rates applied from 1 October 2021 until the first inflation uplift on 1 January 2024 — there was no revision in 2022 or 2023, so work done in those years is charged at the 2021 rates. Since 2024 the rates have been uplifted each January by the Services Producer Price Index (SPPI).

Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary — the December 2023 announcement of the 2024 rates, which sets out the 2021 rates alongside them, and the 1 January 2026 announcement, which sets out the 2025 rates alongside the 2026 ones. The 2021 rates are also in Appendix 2 to the 2021 Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs.

Are the Guideline Hourly Rates Binding?

No. The Guideline Hourly Rates are not a fixed costs regime. They are guidance.

That distinction matters.

A paying party may argue that GHR should operate as a cap. A receiving party may argue that the facts of the matter justify rates at or above the guideline level. The court will look at the work done, the complexity of the matter, the value of the claim, the conduct of the parties, the location of the solicitor, the importance of the matter and the proportionality of the overall costs.

In practical terms, the GHR are often treated as the starting point. If a bill claims GHR, the argument often moves to whether the grade and time are reasonable. If a bill claims above GHR, the argument often becomes whether there is evidence to justify an enhanced rate.

The mistake is thinking that the table does all the work. It does not. The bill still needs to be properly drafted.

Standard Basis Costs: Why Rates Are Only One Part of the Argument

Most claimant costs are assessed on the standard basis unless there is an order or agreement for indemnity costs. On the standard basis, the court considers whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred and whether they are reasonable and proportionate in amount.

The route to the indemnity basis is narrower than it is often assumed to be. It is worth knowing exactly when a Part 36 offer actually shifts the basis of costs — late acceptance of an offer does not do it, and the enhanced consequences arise under CPR 36.17 following judgment rather than on acceptance.

Reaching that basis is worth a great deal, but it does not put rates beyond argument. Even on an indemnity assessment the hours claimed, the grades used, delegation and duplication all remain open to challenge — what falls away is proportionality, not reasonableness.

That means hourly rates are only one part of the assessment. The paying party can still attack:

• excessive time;
• duplication;
• senior fee earners doing routine work;
• vague attendances;
• excessive client contact;
• unnecessary letters;
• excessive review time;
• counsel’s fees;
• expert fees;
• disbursements;
• lack of proportionality;
• poor phase coding;
• weak file chronology; and
• insufficient evidence of fee earner status.

A bill can use the correct 2026 GHR and still be reduced heavily if the rest of the bill is weak. That is why claimant firms should see GHR as part of the costs strategy, not the strategy itself.

The Biggest Paying Party Arguments on Hourly Rates

1. “The claimed grade is too high”

This is one of the most common challenges.

A paying party may argue that the fee earner has been incorrectly graded, especially where Grade A or Grade B rates are claimed. The answer is evidence. The bill should clearly identify:

• the fee earner’s name;
• job title;
• qualification;
• years of post-qualification experience or equivalent experience;
• grade claimed;
• hourly rate claimed;
• role on the file; and
• whether the work was suitable for that grade.

If the fee earner is a solicitor or legal executive with the required experience, say so. If the fee earner is an equivalent fee earner, the equivalence should be clear. Do not make the paying party guess.

2. “Grade A work was not required”

Even where the Grade A rate is correct, the paying party may argue that the work did not require Grade A input. That can be a fair point if a senior solicitor has carried out routine chasers, basic letters or administrative steps. But there are many files where senior input is appropriate, including:

• difficult limitation issues;
• disputed causation;
• complex settlement advice;
• vulnerable clients;
• serious disrepair;
• expert evidence disputes;
• high-value clinical negligence;
• MoD NIHL matrix issues;
• tactical Part 36 decisions;
• detailed assessment strategy; and
• supervision of junior fee earners.

The key is allocation. Senior fee earner time should be targeted and justifiable. Routine work should be delegated where possible. If the bill shows sensible allocation, it is easier to defend.

3. “The firm is claiming the wrong location band”

Location band arguments are common. The paying party may argue that the wrong geographical band has been applied, especially where the firm has multiple offices, remote fee earners, centralised costs teams or a London correspondence address.

The bill should identify the proper location basis and avoid confusion. For firms outside London, National 1 and National 2 must be checked carefully. Manchester Central, for example, falls into National 1, while many other areas fall into National 2. If the wrong band is used, the paying party will exploit it. We list every Greater Manchester band on our Manchester page.

4. “The rate is above GHR and not justified”

Above-GHR rates are not impossible, but they need a reason. Possible justification may include:

• unusual complexity;
• specialist expertise;
• urgency;
• high-value litigation;
• difficult liability or causation issues;
• importance to the client;
• vulnerable claimant issues;
• complex expert evidence;
• conduct by the paying party increasing costs; or
• specialist costs or litigation knowledge.

But the bill must make the justification clear. Simply claiming a higher rate and hoping it survives is not a strategy.

5. “The rates are proportionate, but the total bill is not”

This is where many claimant firms get caught.

A paying party may accept that the hourly rates are broadly correct but still argue that the overall bill is disproportionate. This is especially common in:

• Housing Disrepair;
• MoD NIHL;
• low-value industrial disease;
• credit hire;
• modest personal injury;
• lower-value clinical negligence; and
• settled pre-issue claims.

The response is to make sure the bill explains the work in context. The total bill should be supported by a clear narrative showing why the work was necessary, what issues arose, whether the defendant delayed, whether expert evidence was needed and how settlement was achieved.

Why GHR Matters in Housing Disrepair Costs

Housing Disrepair costs are often attacked on proportionality and hourly rates.

The damages may be modest, but the work required can be significant. There may be damp, mould, leaks, expert inspections, disclosure delays, access problems, vulnerable tenants, children in the property, repair disputes and Part 36 offers. Paying parties often argue that senior rates are excessive for what they describe as a routine disrepair claim. A strong HDR bill should show:

• why the claim was not purely routine;
• what defects were involved;
• when notice was given;
• whether the landlord delayed;
• whether expert evidence was needed;
• whether the client required additional support;
• which work was done by junior fee earners;
• which work required solicitor review; and
• why the claimed rates are reasonable.

The GHR helps anchor the rate. The bill narrative helps justify recovery. For more on this, see our guide to housing disrepair costs in 2026.

Why GHR Matters in MoD NIHL Costs

MoD NIHL files are another area where rates matter.

The paying party may say that military hearing loss claims are processed in volume and should attract reduced rates. Claimant firms should be ready to show the work that was actually required. A properly run MoD NIHL file may involve:

• service history;
• noise exposure evidence;
• audiology;
• tinnitus;
• hearing aid evidence;
• medical evidence;
• limitation;
• matrix settlement advice;
• offer review;
• settlement wording; and
• costs-only issues.

If a senior solicitor has reviewed limitation, causation, settlement or matrix-related advice, that work may be justifiable. If a senior solicitor has carried out routine chasing, it may be vulnerable. The bill should make that distinction clear — see our guide to MoD NIHL costs after matrix settlement.

Why GHR Matters in Clinical Negligence Costs

Clinical negligence claims are often more complex and expert-heavy than other claimant work. Rates may be attacked, but the complexity of the file can support appropriate solicitor involvement where properly evidenced. Expert expenditure draws its own line of challenge — see our note on medical agency fee disputes and the appeals listed for March 2027. A clinical negligence bill should show:

• the medical issues;
• expert disciplines;
• chronology;
• breach and causation work;
• medical record review;
• conferences;
• liability response;
• Part 36 strategy;
• settlement advice; and
• supervision.

If the work required specialist clinical negligence experience, the bill should say so. However, even in clinical negligence, routine work must be allocated sensibly. A strong rate claim can be weakened by poor delegation.

How Claimant Firms Should Present Fee Earner Grades

The safest approach is to give the paying party fewer easy arguments. Each bill should clearly identify:

• Grade A fee earners;
• Grade B fee earners;
• Grade C fee earners;
• Grade D fee earners;
• hourly rate claimed;
• qualification and experience;
• role on the file;
• supervision structure; and
• any changes in rate over time.

Avoid vague descriptions such as “solicitor”, “fee earner” or “case handler” where the grade may be challenged. The more transparent the bill, the harder it is for the paying party to make broad-brush reductions.

How to Deal With Rate Challenges in Points of Dispute

Where the challenge is specifically to Grade A involvement on a housing disrepair file, see defending Grade A rates in housing disrepair claims, which deals with delegation, proportionality and above-guideline rates in that context.

When a paying party challenges hourly rates, the reply should not simply say: “The rates claimed are reasonable.” That is too weak.

A better reply should address:

• the applicable 2026 GHR;
• the correct location band;
• the fee earner’s grade;
• the fee earner’s experience;
• the nature of the work;
• the complexity of the claim;
• the proportionality of the rate;
• the conduct of the paying party, if relevant;
• why any above-GHR rate is justified; and
• why the proposed paying party reduction is too low.

A proper reply should be file-specific. Generic replies invite generic reductions.

Every one of those challenges is answerable, and almost all of them are answered by how the bill was drawn rather than by what is argued afterwards. Grades justified at the time, seniority explained where senior time was genuinely needed, routine work visibly charged as routine — none of that can be retrofitted once Points of Dispute have been served against a bill that did not do it.

That is the work we do. Bill of costs drafting at DMD Costs is subject to senior technical review by Diellza Nika Hyseni, law costs draftsperson and Managing Director, who has more than 15 years’ experience in legal costs — and rates are the argument she sees most.

Should Claimant Firms Claim Above GHR?

Sometimes, yes. But not automatically.

The Guide itself allows for it. In substantial and complex litigation, it says, an hourly rate above the guideline figures may be appropriate for Grade A, B and C fee earners where other factors, such as the value of the litigation, its complexity, its urgency or importance, or an international element, would justify a significantly higher rate; and that is not restricted to high-level commercial work but may apply, for example, to large and complex personal injury work (para 29).

Claiming above GHR may be justified where the file genuinely required specialist expertise, unusual urgency, complexity or senior strategic input. However, above-GHR rates should be approached carefully. If the file is low-value, routine or poorly evidenced, an above-GHR claim may distract from stronger parts of the bill and create unnecessary friction.

The question is not simply: “Can we claim above GHR?” The better question is:

“Can we justify this rate on this file, with this evidence, before this paying party or court?”

If the answer is no, it may be better to claim GHR and remove one argument from the dispute.

Should Claimant Firms Use GHR Even If Their Retainer Has Higher Rates?

The indemnity principle still matters.

A receiving party cannot usually recover more from the paying party than the client is liable to pay under the retainer. If the client’s retainer permits higher rates, that does not automatically mean those higher rates will be recovered. The claimed rates must still be reasonable and proportionate.

If the retainer rates are lower than GHR, the recoverable rate may be limited by what the client is actually liable to pay. That is why the retainer, CFA, client care documents and rate information should be checked before the bill is finalised.

N260s and Interim Applications

The form, the deadlines in PD 44 para 9.5(4) and what a statement of costs has to show are set out in our guide to Form N260 and summary assessment.

The 2026 GHR also matter for N260s. On summary assessment, the court may look closely at whether the rates are appropriate for the hearing, application and level of fee earner involved. For interim applications, claimant firms should check:

• whether the correct 2026 rates are used;
• whether the right fee earner grade is shown;
• whether the work was proportionate to the application;
• whether attendance time is reasonable;
• whether preparation time is properly described;
• whether counsel’s fees are supported; and
• whether VAT is correctly included.

A weak N260 can cause avoidable reductions at the hearing.

Precedent S and Electronic Bills

For electronic bills, rate accuracy is essential. A Precedent S bill should be clean, consistent and defensible. Common issues include:

• incorrect fee earner grades;
• inconsistent rates;
• wrong location band;
• changes in rate not explained;
• duplicated fee earner names;
• vague descriptions;
• excessive senior input;
• incorrect phase coding;
• administrative work charged at solicitor rates; and
• failure to separate costs by phase.

The 2026 GHR should be built into the bill properly. If the data is messy, the paying party will find the weakness quickly.

Practical Checklist Before Serving a Bill

Before serving a bill using the 2026 GHR, claimant firms should check:

• Have the 2026 rates been applied from the correct date?
• Is the correct location band used?
• Is each fee earner correctly graded?
• Is fee earner experience recorded?
• Are any above-GHR rates justified?
• Has senior time been limited to appropriate work?
• Has routine work been delegated properly?
• Are telephone calls properly described?
• Are review entries specific?
• Are disbursements supported?
• Is the bill proportionate to the issues?
• Does the narrative explain complexity or delay?
• Are any defendant conduct points included?
• Is the retainer consistent with the rates claimed?
• Is Precedent S accurate where required?
• Are N260 rates updated for summary assessment?
• Are Points of Dispute likely to attack grade or rate?
• Is there a clear answer ready?

This checklist should be completed before service, not after the paying party has already raised objections.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Mistake 1: Treating GHR as automatic recovery

GHR helps, but it does not guarantee recovery. The work still has to be reasonable and proportionate.

Mistake 2: Using the right rate but the wrong grade

A Grade B rate will not survive if the fee earner is not properly Grade B.

Mistake 3: Letting senior fee earners do routine work

This creates easy reductions, even where the senior rate itself is correct.

Mistake 4: Failing to explain above-GHR rates

Above-GHR claims need evidence and context.

Mistake 5: Ignoring proportionality

A bill can use correct rates and still be reduced if the overall costs are disproportionate.

Mistake 6: Using outdated rates

If the file includes work after 1 January 2026, make sure the correct rates are considered.

Mistake 7: Poor fee earner descriptions

Do not leave the paying party to guess who did the work and why their rate is justified.

So, What Should Claimant Firms Do With the 2026 GHR?

Claimant firms should use the 2026 GHR as a strong starting point, but not as a complete answer. The best approach is:

• claim the correct rate;
• use the correct grade;
• allocate work sensibly;
• explain the file properly;
• evidence fee earner experience;
• justify any above-GHR rate;
• address proportionality;
• prepare for Points of Dispute; and
• keep the bill clean, accurate and assessment-ready.

The firms that recover well are not simply the firms that know the table. They are the firms that know how to present the work.

How DMD Costs Can Help

DMD Costs works with claimant solicitor firms on standard-basis costs recovery. We can assist with:

• bills of costs;
• Precedent S electronic bills;
• N260 schedules;
• Points of Dispute;
• Replies;
• hourly rate disputes;
• fee earner grade challenges;
• proportionality arguments;
• Housing Disrepair costs;
• MoD NIHL costs;
• clinical negligence costs;
• costs-only proceedings; and
• settlement-led negotiation.

Rates are only half the picture: the grade you claim has to survive the way the bill presents it. That is a bill of costs drafting question as much as a rates question, and it bites hardest on expert-heavy work — see our clinical negligence costs draftsman service for how grades and delegation are justified on those files.

The point is not academic. In the August 2026 Abbott costs judgment the court reduced the payment on account in part because of concerns about hourly rates challenged on assessment, the hours claimed and the seniority of the fee earners engaged.

If your bill is likely to face a rate challenge, send us the file before service. We can review the rates, grades and presentation so the bill is built properly from the start. DMD Costs provides outsourced costs drafting for claimant solicitor firms.

Sources

• Solicitors’ guideline hourly rates (GOV.UK) (the 2026 rates, the London and National bands, and the A to Z of areas).
• Guideline hourly rates 2026 (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 1 January 2026) (the 2.28% uplift, with the 2025 rates in brackets).
• Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs, 2021 edition (GOV.UK) (paragraphs 27 to 31, and Appendix 2: localities and grades of fee earner).
• Responding to recommendations of the Civil Justice Council Costs Review and new Guideline Hourly Rates (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 1 December 2023) (the 2024 rates, with the 2021 rates in brackets).
• Practice Direction 44: General Rules about Costs (Section 9: summary assessment).
• CPR Part 36: Offers to Settle (rule 36.17: costs and other consequences after judgment).