Answer in 2 sentences (snippet-bait):
In Kapoor v Johal, the Senior Courts Costs Office assessed a c. £258,000 bill at nil for serious misconduct and ordered indemnity costs against the receiving party—alongside an SRA referral. The message is simple: a defective or dishonest bill won’t just be trimmed; it can be obliterated. (Gibbs Wyatt Stone)
________________________________________
• Found serious misconduct in the bill and underlying file (egregious defects/fabrication).
• Assessed the bill at £0 and awarded the paying party’s DA costs on the indemnity basis.
• Flagged matters to the SRA.
This followed closely on the heels of Hyder v Aidat-Sarran (75% cut under CPR 44.11 for persistent defects), underlining that misconduct sanctions are alive and well.
________________________________________
1. Relief ≠ immunity. Even if you win relief on timing or format, CPR 44.11 can still bite hard on misconduct.
2. You own your draftsman’s work. The solicitor bears responsibility for a third-party bill.
3. PoDs are a roadmap. If defects are flagged and you don’t fix them, expect sanctions—not sympathy.
________________________________________
• Pre-serve QA on every Bill/e-Bill (PD 47 compliance; names/grades/status per AKC; correct phases, periods, parties; maths + voucher reconciliation).
• Repair what PoDs flag—fast. Don’t double-down; correct the document and explain.
• Partner sign-off trail. Record who approved and when.
• Narratives that prove necessity & proportionality. Tie time to pleadings, orders, outcomes.
• Exhibit discipline. Scope letters and vouchers that match claims line-by-line. (Wikipedia)
________________________________________
“In light of objections at §§[x–y], the bill has been amended: certification corrected; time realigned to phases; administrative items removed; vouchers reconciled. Remaining items are necessary and proportionate with reference to pleadings, expert scope and outcome, and should be allowed.”
________________________________________
• Missing or wrong certification
• Fee-earner names/grades/status absent (AKC)
• Time that doesn’t match attendance notes
• Maths/phase inconsistencies; duplicates
• Disbursements without vouchers/scope
• PoDs previously flagged issues that remain unfixed
________________________________________
• “A day late” can be forgiven; dishonesty/defects won’t.
• Indemnity costs against you are real if misconduct is found.
• Reputation & regulatory exposure now trails non-compliant bills.
________________________________________
We run a pre-serve red-flag audit and draft PD 47-compliant Bills/e-Bills with evidence-led narratives. We then negotiate to settlement and handle PoDs/Replies, Payments on Account and, where needed, Default Costs Certificates.
Free trial to settlement: send one live file; we’ll draft the Bill/e-Bill and negotiate it to settlement at no cost.
Email: info@dmdcosts.co.uk
1) What did the court decide in Kapoor v Johal?
The SCCO assessed the receiving party’s bill at nil for serious misconduct, ordered indemnity costs against them, and flagged matters for potential SRA attention.
2) Does relief from sanction protect you from misconduct penalties?
No. Even if late service/format issues get relief, the court can still impose CPR 44.11 sanctions for misconduct (including drastic reductions).
3) What counts as “misconduct” in the billing context?
Egregious or persistent defects, inaccuracies not corrected after PoDs, misleading narratives, unreconciled vouchers, duplicate/inflated time, and non-compliant certification.
4) Are solicitors liable for a third-party draftsman’s errors?
Yes. The solicitor owns the bill and is vicariously responsible for a draftsman’s failures—poor QA is not a defence.
5) How do we avoid a Kapoor-style outcome?
Run pre-serve QA (PD47 compliance; AKC: names/grades/status), fix items raised in PoDs immediately, keep evidence-led narratives and vouchers aligned line-by-line, and ensure partner sign-off before service.