A solicitor who tried to sue the Royal Albert Hall in a row over ticket prices is facing a bill for £120,000 after failing to persuade a costs judge it was disproportionate for the venue to instruct London solicitors.

William Stockler and his son, Alexander, are the holders of rights to ‘permanent’ seats in the hall, but took issue with a ticket return scheme which allows seat-holders to return unwanted tickets for particular events in exchange for a payment.

The Stocklers did not agree with the calculations of the amounts due by way of returns and issued proceedings against The Corporation of the Hall of The Arts and Sciences - which holds a long lease of the hall - claiming an account and payment of the monies which they maintained were due to them. But their suit was unsuccessful and in May last year the Stocklers were ordered to pay the costs of the claim (including the costs of an application for permission to amend their particulars of claim) and a counterclaim brought by the hall, on the indemnity basis from 9 June 2023 as a result of ‘unreasonable behaviour’.

After a line-by-line assessment of the defendant’s costs bill - which initially stood at £162,789.37 but which the claimants argued was unreasonable - the bill was calculated at £120,513.88.

In William Thomas Stockler & Anor v The Corporation of the Hall of The Arts and Sciences, the claimants argued the bill should be reduced further on the basis it was disproportionate.

One of the grounds put forward by William Stockler, appearing in person and on behalf of his son, was that it was disproportionate for the defendant, represented by Bates Wells, to have instructed a firm of solicitors outside the area in which it was based. 

Deputy Costs Judge Joseph had previously ruled that it was reasonable for the defendant to have instructed a firm of solicitors in London. Ruling that the assessed bill was not disproportionate, Joseph said the claim had ‘some complexity’ and therefore the ‘reasonable course’ had been for a London 2 firm to have been instructed. 'It is difficult to see how the costs which have been assessed as being reasonable should afterwards be considered to be disproportionate’, Joseph added. ‘The reasonable instruction of a London 2 firm necessarily carries with it the result that costs are going to be higher.’