Departing From Fixed Recoverable Costs – When Will The Court Disapply The Regime?

When proceedings become significantly more complex than anticipated, the Court may disapply the fixed costs regime and award assessed costs instead.

A recent decision in Latunji & Anor v One Savings Bank Plc [2026] EWHC 1023 (Ch) provides a useful example of the Court departing from a fixed costs regime where proceedings became substantially more complex than ordinarily anticipated.

The Background: Routine Enforcement Proceedings

The case concerned third party debt order applications brought by the Claimant bank to enforce judgement debts. Ordinarily, applications of this nature attract fixed costs, reflecting their usually straightforward and administrative nature. However, the applications became heavily contested. The Defendant issued multiple applications, relied on several witness statements and generated significant correspondence between the parties. The hearing itself lasted almost two hours and involved extensive submissions and multiple hearing bundles.

When a Fixed-Costs Matter Becomes Contested

The Claimant argued that the matter had moved beyond the type of application the fixed costs regime was intended to cover and sought assessed costs instead.

The Court’s Approach to Complexity

Deputy Master Glover noted that whilst third party debt applications are generally “formulaic”, the proceedings in this case had become far more complex than the regime anticipated. The Court accepted that the level of contest, preparation and Court time justified departing from fixed costs.

A Significant Costs Consequence

As a result, the Court disapplied the fixed costs regime and awarding assessed costs of £5,000.00, compared to fixed costs of £98.50 per application.

Key Takeaways for Practitioners

The decision in Latunji is a reminder that whilst fixed costs regimes are intended to promote certainty and proportionality, the Court retains a discretion to depart from them in appropriate cases. That said, the judgement also reinforces that departure will not arise simply because a matter is disputed or requires additional work. The circumstances must take the case beyond the ordinary scope of the regime itself.