N260 Statement of Costs: 2026 Guide to Summary Assessment, Deadlines and Recoverability

An N260 can decide thousands of pounds of costs in a few minutes, which is why it should not be the form somebody fills in on the morning of the hearing. It is the model Statement of Costs used where the court is asked to assess costs summarily — instead of sending them off into the detailed assessment procedure under Part 47, the judge who heard the matter fixes the recoverable figure there and then.

That compresses everything. The judge may have very little time. There are no Points of Dispute and Replies. There may be one short exchange about rates, hours, counsel and proportionality before a number is written down.

So the schedule has to do more than add up. It has to make the costs easy to follow, easy to justify and hard to reduce without a reason.

What Form N260 actually is

N260 is the HMCTS Statement of Costs for summary assessment, and Practice Direction 44 identifies it as the model form.

Note the wording. PD 44 para 9.5 does not require the official PDF to be reproduced exactly — it says the statement should follow Form N260 as closely as possible, and that it must be signed. That leaves room for a clearer schedule where the case needs one, provided the structure and the information the court expects survive.

Take the current form from GOV.UK rather than an internal copy. The published version is maintained, and an old precedent sitting in a firm’s template folder is the usual source of a schedule missing a field the court now expects.

What summary assessment is

Summary assessment is the judge who decided the case or application determining the amount payable, without a detailed assessment. CPR 44.1 defines it that way, subject to the limited alternative in CPR 44.6(2). The court considers the costs claimed, hears the objection, and fixes a figure that becomes part of the order.

When the court will assess summarily

PD 44 para 9.1: whenever the court makes a costs order which does not provide only for fixed costs, it should consider summary assessment.

Para 9.2 then gives the general rule — the court should ordinarily assess summarily:

• at the conclusion of a fast track trial, dealing with the costs of the whole claim; and
• at the conclusion of any other hearing lasting not more than one day, dealing with the costs of the application or matter determined — or of the whole claim, where the hearing disposes of it.

That is subject to there being good reason not to. PD 44 gives the example: where the paying party shows substantial grounds for disputing the sum claimed which cannot be dealt with summarily. Detailed assessment may then be the better route.

Is an N260 needed on every fast track case?

No — and this is where older guides date badly.

Para 9.1 is about orders which do not provide only for fixed costs. CPR 44.6 separates assessed costs from fixed costs and provides that fixed costs under Part 45 are recovered in accordance with that Part. A fast track trial does not, by itself, mean a conventional N260 is required.

Before preparing one, check:

• whether the claim sits within a fixed recoverable costs regime;
• whether an exception or separate assessed-costs entitlement applies;
• what costs order is actually being sought; and
• whether the court has directed anything specific about costs.

That check belongs in the diary, not in the corridor outside court.

The deadlines

The statement must be filed at court and served on every party against whom a costs order is sought, as soon as possible and in any event by those points. They are minimums, not targets. A substantial schedule landing at the cut-off invites objections at the hearing that could have been narrowed by correspondence a week earlier.

What happens if the N260 is late

There is no rule that a late N260 produces nil costs. There is also no version of this where late service is harmless.

PD 44 para 9.6 provides that failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with para 9.5 will be taken into account by the court in deciding what order to make about costs. So the consequence is discretionary, and depending on the circumstances may be a reduction, an adjournment of the costs issue, directions for later assessment, or costs consequences arising from the further hearing the failure made necessary.

Neither “miss 24 hours and you lose your costs” nor “it does not really matter” is accurate advice. The way to avoid needing to know which is right is to prepare it early enough that compliance is never in issue.

What the statement must show

PD 44 para 9.5 requires the statement to show separately:

• the number of hours claimed;
• the hourly rate claimed;
• the grade of fee earner;
• the amount and nature of disbursements, other than counsel’s hearing fee;
• the legal representative’s costs of attending or appearing at the hearing;
• counsel’s fees; and
• the VAT claimed.

These are not form-filling fields. They are what the judge needs to assess the claim. A schedule that makes the court work out who did the work, at what rate, or what an unexplained disbursement represents, has made summary assessment harder than it needed to be — and the party who prepared it carries the cost of that.

The block figure problem

This is where N260s are most often vulnerable. A single line reading:

“Work done on documents — £4,850”

gives the judge nothing to assess and every reason to apply a broad reduction. Depending on the hearing, the underlying work might be reviewing the application and evidence, preparing evidence in response, considering witness statements or disclosure, instructions to counsel, considering authorities, preparing the bundle, reviewing offers and preparing for the hearing.

An N260 does not need to become a chronological bill. But there is a wide gap between a sensible summary and an unexplained block, and summary assessment still requires enough detail for the court to assess.

Hourly rates and the 2026 guidelines

Rates are the most common flashpoint. The 2026 Guideline Hourly Rates took effect on 1 January 2026, and they matter here more than anywhere because summary assessment is the context the guidelines came from.

They are not automatic entitlements and not a ceiling. The court still weighs grade, location, complexity, skill and responsibility, the nature of the work, the time spent and the rest of the CPR 44.4 factors. Where the rate exceeds the applicable guideline, expect to be asked why.

And note the separate challenge: the grade can be attacked even where the rate matches the guideline exactly, if a senior fee earner did routine work. That argument runs the same way at summary assessment as it does on a bill — the reasoning is set out in our guide to defending senior fee earner rates against a delegation challenge.

Standard basis or indemnity basis?

An N260 is a format. It does not decide the basis of assessment.

Under CPR 44.3, summary assessment can be on either basis, and where the order does not specify, it is the standard basis.

That difference can be worth a great deal on the same schedule, so prepare the N260 with the order actually being sought in mind. Where an indemnity order is in play because of an offer, the mechanics matter — and they are narrower than often assumed, as our note on when Part 36 actually shifts the basis of costs explains.

What the judge is weighing

CPR 44.4 requires the court to have regard to all the circumstances, including:

• the conduct of the parties, and efforts made to resolve the dispute;
• the amount or value involved;
• the importance of the matter;
• complexity or novelty;
• skill, effort, specialised knowledge and responsibility;
• time spent;
• where and in what circumstances the work was done; and
• the receiving party’s last approved or agreed costs budget.

Which is why presenting 20 hours × £295 = £5,900 does not answer the assessment. The question is whether the time, the rate and the work were reasonable in this dispute.

Costs budgets and the N260

CPR 44.4 lists the last approved or agreed budget among the matters the court considers. On a costs-managed case, whoever prepares the N260 needs to know whether the work is incurred or budgeted, which phase it falls in, what the budget allows and whether anything in the costs-management history is likely to come up.

Budgeting is reaching into cases that once sat outside it — the High Court ordered it in £10m-plus group litigation in Fuschillo v Johnson & Johnson — so the assumption that a given file is unbudgeted is worth checking rather than making.

VAT: do not simply add 20%

PD 44 is specific about this and it is regularly got wrong.

• Where VAT is claimed, the receiving party’s VAT registration number must appear in a prominent place at the head of the statement (para 2.2).
• VAT should not be included in a claim for costs where the receiving party is able to recover it as input tax (para 2.3).
• Where only part is recoverable as input tax, only the irrecoverable proportion should be claimed.

So the sequence is not “profit costs, then add VAT”. It is “what is this client’s VAT position”, and the responsibility for getting it right sits with the receiving party.

Counsel, travel and waiting

Counsel’s fees belong in their own lines — advice, conference, document work and the hearing fee. For the hearing fee the court may consider whether attendance was reasonably required and whether the amount is reasonable. Where counsel did substantial preparatory work, make that visible rather than presenting one unexplained figure, and make sure the schedule matches the fee note.

Travel and waiting have their own fields. Recorded time is not the same as recoverable time, and a claim should be checked against the actual hours, the rate applied and the circumstances of the hearing.

Why the signature matters more than it looks

The statement must be signed by the party or their legal representative, and PD 44 applies the Part 22 rules about who may sign as though the document were a statement of truth.

The certificate on the form goes further. The person signing certifies, in substance, that:

• the costs stated do not exceed the costs the party is liable to pay; and
• counsel’s fees and other expenses have been incurred in the amounts stated and will be paid to the people identified.

That ties the N260 directly to the indemnity principle. It is a signed costs document, not an opening position. Where there is a live question about the retainer, the client’s liability or a disbursement, resolve it before signing — the consequences of an entitlement that fails underneath a costs claim are set out in HD v North Devon Healthcare Trust, where unenforceable retainers took six assessments to nil.

N260 or Bill of Costs?

An N260 should be detailed enough to permit a proper assessment without being drafted as an electronic bill. Where the costs go the other way instead, the detailed assessment route has its own traps — including what happens when Points of Dispute are defective — and where the substantive claim settled without proceedings, CPR 46.14 costs-only proceedings may be the route to assessment at all.

The 2026 Rolls Building change

This is the update missing from most N260 guides still in circulation.

From 14 April 2026, a Practice Note applies to summary assessments in the Chancery Division, the Technology and Construction Court, the Commercial Court and the London Circuit Commercial Court, within the Rolls Building. For those assessments, parties should file and serve an Excel version of N260 in addition to a signed read-only PDF.

The bespoke Excel replicates N260, uses self-calculating formulae and accommodates up to twelve solicitors and two counsel.

One point to carry: the April note superseded an earlier note of 13 March 2026, which had directed parties to pilot forms N260A and N260B. Any process built on the March version needs updating, and any guide still describing N260A/N260B as the requirement is out of date.

The ordinary PD 44 filing and service deadlines continue to apply.

It does not apply everywhere

The Practice Note is expressly limited to those courts within the Rolls Building. It is not a nationwide replacement for the ordinary N260 process, and presenting it as one is the sort of error a paying party enjoys correcting.

If the paying party disputes it heavily

A substantial dispute does not automatically defeat summary assessment, but para 9.2 recognises there may be good reason not to assess summarily where the paying party shows substantial grounds that cannot be dealt with in the time available. The court can order detailed assessment instead, and under CPR 44.6 can direct that summary assessment happen later.

Which is an argument for transparency rather than compression: a schedule clear enough that legitimate objections can be resolved in minutes is a schedule that gets assessed rather than adjourned.

Can a costs officer pick it up later?

Not simply because the judge ran out of time. PD 44 para 9.7 is explicit that the court awarding costs cannot order a summary assessment by a costs officer. Where summary assessment remains appropriate but cannot be completed, the court can give directions for a later hearing, and CPR 44.6(2) allows another judge who could have decided the underlying matter to carry it out where there is good reason. That is a different thing from sending the costs for detailed assessment.

Where N260s actually get reduced

The vulnerable areas are predictable, which is what makes them avoidable:

• Excessive preparation time — why did this application need those hours?
• Senior fee earners on routine work — correct grade does not make every attendance reasonable.
• Above-guideline rates with no explanation — give the court a reason before it asks.
• Duplication — two fee earners on the same issue needs justifying.
• Large blocked document time — the less the judge can see, the broader the cut.
• Unexplained counsel’s fees — identify the work and match the fee note.
• Unsupported disbursements — have the invoices to hand.
• Incorrect VAT — check entitlement rather than adding it automatically.
• Work outside the application — an interim schedule should not quietly carry costs of the wider action.
• Disproportionate totals — individually reasonable work can still be cut on the standard basis.

Note too that agreement does not save a figure: para 9.10 provides that the court will not approve disproportionate or unreasonable costs, and where costs are agreed the order should record that it is by consent.

Prepare it backwards

The strongest schedules are built from the argument that is going to happen. Ask what the paying party will attack.

• Rates? Make the grades and periods unmistakable.
• Preparation time? Show what generated it.
• Counsel? Have the fee note.
• Proportionality? Know what drove the spend.
• Duplication? Make supervision distinguishable from repetition.
• Budget? Know the approved position.
• VAT? Know the client’s status.

An N260 should answer the obvious objections before the advocate has to answer them out loud.

Checklist before it goes out

• Is summary assessment actually appropriate, and is the case fixed-costs only?
• Is the correct hearing and date shown, and does the schedule cover the right costs period?
• Has the 2-day or 24-hour deadline been diarised?
• Are all fee earners identified and correctly graded, with current, defensible rates?
• Can any above-guideline element be explained?
• Is document time broken down, and are attendance costs separated?
• Are counsel’s fees accurate and disbursement invoices available?
• Is VAT properly recoverable, and is the registration number shown?
• Has any approved or agreed budget been considered?
• Does the total reconcile, and does it stay within the client’s underlying liability?
• Has the right person signed it?
• If the hearing is in a Rolls Building court covered by the 2026 Practice Note, are both the Excel N260 and the signed PDF ready?

The last question is the only one that matters: could the advocate defend this schedule if the judge went through it line by line now? If not, it is not finished. The wider sequence from order to payment is set out in our costs recovery checklist.

How DMD Costs can help

We prepare N260 Statements of Costs for claimant solicitor firms dealing with interim hearings, applications and other matters where summary assessment is expected — reviewing the recoverable period, fee earner grading, rates, document and preparation time, counsel’s fees, disbursements, VAT, proportionality and budget alignment, and making the schedule assessment-ready for whoever is on their feet.

We provide drafting support rather than advocacy; the instructing solicitor or advocate remains responsible for the hearing. The distinction between the drafting and advocacy roles is set out in our note on what a costs draftsman does and what a Costs Lawyer does.

N260 needed for an upcoming hearing? Send us the file and the hearing details and we will confirm the fixed fee before any work begins. Our full range of costs drafting services covers everything from a single schedule to detailed assessment.

Key takeaways

The form is short. The assessment behind it is not. The strongest N260s get five things right:

• Scope — know which costs the hearing actually concerns.
• Deadline — 2 days for a fast track trial, 24 hours otherwise, and earlier is better.
• Rates — correct grades, current rates, and a reason for any departure.
• Evidence — counsel’s fee note, disbursement invoices, VAT position.
• Presentation — clear enough that the judge need not reconstruct the file in court.

Get those right and the N260 stops being a form and starts being a costs recovery document.

A note on sources

Written from the primary material: Practice Direction 44, in particular paragraphs 2.2, 2.3, 9.1, 9.2, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7 and 9.10; CPR 44.1, 44.3, 44.4 and 44.6; the Guideline Hourly Rates 2026, in force 1 January 2026; the official Form N260 published by HMCTS; and the Rolls Building Practice Note on summary assessments effective 14 April 2026, which superseded the note of 13 March 2026 that had referred to pilot forms N260A and N260B.