Absurdity in and of Costs Negotiations

For a number of years I have been on what I think may have  been a sole crusade to reduce the cost of costs negotiations and try and instil some sense in defendant negotiators by being ultra reasonable. All we want is a reasonable amount for a job well done - we don't incite costs war! So, when the defendant raises the highly erudite objection that goes "you've claimed 5 routine communications to get two sets of hospital notes, we offer 4", I like to say to respond by saying "well.......here are the five letters and calls, which one of them do you think we did for the sheer joy of it?". I do the same for all of the objections that they have raised. There's no genuine issue of privilege because the main litigation is over and done with, and I think rather than the spirit of openness supposedly enshrined in the CPR, many people in reality like to keep their cards close to their chest for pure bloody mindedness, to remind us all of why we ditched old style "taxations" which were bedevilled by last minute ambushes,  and in some cases so that the less scrupulous amongst the legal fraternity can attempt to recover much more than their work was in reality worth.

Obviously this is all subject to client agreement and there are a few safeguards before papers can be released;  my standard practice is to ask my opponent for an undertaking that - 

1. They will not use the documents for any purpose other than assessment / negotiation of costs
2. They will not release the documents or any part of them to their client or any other third party
3. They will not take or retain either physical or electronic copies, and
4. They will return any hard copies to me post hearing

What I want is to ensure that the documents are used to ease the assessment process and nothing more. I do not want Mr.Smith's comment that his former employers were a bunch of thieving crooks to end up in the hands of his former employers, who then take it out on Mr.Smith's wife and children. Or similar. All sorts of potential disasters.

If they accept that they can have a full copy of the papers and (massively radical idea coming here) the claimant and defendant's advisers can between them arrive at a relatively inexpensive joint opinion as to a reasonable level of costs. If there is a disagreement, the precise dispute can be pin-pointed down to individual document level and the court asked for a decision before everyone has set the "costs of assessment" juggernaut rolling down the hill, belching clouds of generic PODs and Replies, heading for a  rather messy head on collision with the judiciary at large. 

So what is the problem?

None really. Except that today I have been told by a defendant costs specialist that the undertakings are "onerous" and "absurd". 

Onerous? Not sure that the person concerned has actually looked up the definition of the word. How badly must you have to want to copy something for an undertaking not to copy it to be "onerous"? Is there a call for a self-help group?

As for "absurd", you have my profuse apologies. On reflection, and having given it very considerable thought, I agree that reducing the costs of assessment for those with a vested interest in ensuring that they continue to spiral could, I suppose, be seen as an absurdity. Massively high assessment costs have certainly helped to ensure that we all have a long, prosperous and most of all certain future ahead of us!