Entries by Elliot Walker

, , , ,

Costs On Indemnity Basis For Wasted Hearing Due To Unreasonable Adjournment Application.

In Century Property (Leeds) Ltd v Aldiss, the court determined consequential costs issues following a successful enforcement application. The court applied the general rule under CPR 44.2(2)(a) and ordered the unsuccessful defendant, Dr Aldiss, to pay the claimant’s costs. It rejected his arguments against liability, namely his status as a litigant in person, the alleged prematurity of the application, a pending appeal, and his sincerity, finding no reason to depart from the rule. On the basis of assessment, the court adopted a bifurcated approach. While the application’s legally unusual nature and the defendant’s entitlement to defend his pension justified standard basis assessment for most costs, the costs of the first hearing were awarded on the indemnity basis. This was due to the defendant’s conduct in obtaining an adjournment to file evidence and then filing none, which the court found was a tactic designed to delay and which rendered those costs wasted. On quantum, the court conducted a summary assessment, applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality from CPR 44.3(5), 44.4, and West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust. It reduced the claimed total of £57,567.43, finding certain elements of the correspondence and document preparation costs to be excessive, resulting in a final assessed sum of £54,432.93. The court refused a stay of the costs order.

, ,

Costs Judge Rejects Mathematical Approach To Proportionality Assessment | Stockler [2025] EWHC 2262

In  Stockler & Anor v The Corporation of the Hall of Arts and Sciences the court considered whether assessed costs should be further reduced on grounds of proportionality following a line-by-line assessment. The underlying claim, concerning payments under a ticket return scheme, was valued at less than £10,000 but was allocated to the fast track. Following substantive hearings, the claimants were ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, with Part 1 of the bill (£76,066.38) covering costs on the standard basis. After a detailed assessment reduced this sum to £55,581.38, the claimants argued these costs were disproportionate, proposing a mathematical approach based on a multiple of the claim’s £3,200 value. Deputy Costs Judge Joseph rejected this methodology, affirming that CPR 44.3(5) requires a holistic consideration of all factors without special weight to monetary value. The court applied the guidance in West and Demouilpied v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust, focusing solely on Part 1 as proportionality does not apply to indemnity costs. The judge found the issues of contractual interpretation were complex, justifying the instruction of London solicitors and Counsel, a point reinforced by the earlier allocation to the fast track. The court also accepted the defendant’s arguments concerning wider factors, including reputational damage and the risk of similar claims from other seat-holders. Significantly, the court held it would be unfair to permit a further reduction via proportionality after numerous Points of Dispute had been dismissed for insufficient particularisation under the principles of Ainsworth v Stewarts Law LLP. The court concluded the line-by-line assessment had already incorporated considerations of proportionality, particularly regarding rates and fee earner grades, and ruled the assessed sum of £55,581.38 was both reasonable and proportionate. No further reduction was made.

, , ,

Security For Costs Application Under CPR 25 | Financial Difficulties and Late Claims

In Baker Botts (UK) LLP v Carbon Holdings Ltd & Ors the court determined two principal costs issues: an application for security for costs against a Part 20 claimant and the late challenge to the reasonableness of the claimant’s fees. On the security for costs application under CPR 25.26 and 25.27, the court found there was reason to believe Egypt Hydrocarbon Corporation SAE (“EHC”) would be unable to pay the applicant’s costs if unsuccessful. The judge applied the principles from _Explosive Learning Solutions Ltd v Landmarc Support Services Ltd_ [2023] EWHC 1263 (Comm), rejecting EHC’s arguments of a transformed financial position due to a lack of supporting evidence, its history of defaulting on obligations, and the uncertainty of a working capital facility that expired before the litigation’s conclusion. On quantum, adopting the broad-brush approach from _Pisante v Logothetis_ [2020] Costs LR 1815, the court set security at £1,500,000, a 75% calculation from a £2,000,000 assessment, and ordered it be provided by banker’s draft. On the second issue, whilst the service of Points of Dispute in January 2025 was “highly unsatisfactory”, the court permitted the defendants to amend their defence to challenge the reasonableness of fees under the principle in Turner & Co v O Palomo SA [2000] 1 WLR 37. The court granted summary judgment for the claimant but referred the assessment of reasonableness for specific invoices totalling US$1,026,053.67 to a Costs Judge.

,

SIAC Lacks Jurisdiction To Award Costs In Naturalisation Review Proceedings

In Secretary of State for the Home Department v FGF [2025] EWHC 2019 (Admin), the High Court determined whether the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) had jurisdiction to award costs in review proceedings under section 2D of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997. FGF sought costs after the Secretary of State withdrew a refusal of his naturalisation application, prompting SIAC to order costs in his favour. The court addressed two key issues: whether SIAC’s statutory framework incorporated costs jurisdiction for section 2D reviews, and whether such jurisdiction extended to withdrawn applications under rule 11A of the SIAC Procedure Rules 2003. The Secretary of State argued SIAC lacked inherent costs powers, while FGF contended section 2D(3)-(4) imported judicial review costs principles. The court held SIAC’s jurisdiction was strictly statutory, with no implied costs power, and section 2D(3)’s reference to judicial review principles did not encompass costs. It emphasised that any costs power would require explicit conferral under section 5 of the Act, which the current rules omitted. On withdrawal, the court ruled rule 11A(2) automatically terminated proceedings, leaving no discretion for costs. Distinguishing SIAC’s codified powers from the High Court’s broader jurisdiction, it rejected parallels with judicial review costs regimes. The judicial review succeeded, quashing SIAC’s costs order and confirming no jurisdiction to award costs in such cases.

Fraudulent Non-Disclosure in Financial Remedy Proceedings | Indemnity Costs Award Following Successful Appeal

In Helliwell v Entwistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1071, the Court of Appeal addressed costs issues following the appellant husband’s successful appeal against a financial remedy order set aside due to the respondent wife’s fraudulent non-disclosure of assets under a pre-nuptial agreement. The appellant sought indemnity costs totalling £669,840 for both appeal and first-instance proceedings, plus repayment of a £75,000 costs order, with immediate payment. The respondent contested indemnity costs, seeking standard basis assessment with deferred payment until after the remitted needs assessment or any Supreme Court appeal.
Applying the “out of the norm” test from Excelsior Commercial & Industrial Holdings Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 879 and Esure Services Ltd v Quarcoo [2009] EWCA Civ 595, the court found the respondent’s deliberate non-disclosure, express warranties of full disclosure, and obstructive conduct (including preventing the appellant from receiving legal advice) fell well outside ordinary and reasonable conduct of family proceedings. The unanimous judgment awarded indemnity costs for both stages of proceedings if not agreed. The decision demonstrates that fraudulent non-disclosure in financial remedy proceedings, particularly where coupled with express warranties, will justify departing from standard basis assessment.

, , ,

CPR 44.3(5) Factors Considered | Proportionality Reduction Applied To Internal Communications Following Line-By-Line Assessment

In XX v Jordan Young & Aviva Insurance Limited [2025] EWHC 2073 (SCCO), Costs Judge Nagalingam applied proportionality principles under CPR 44.3(5) to reduce a £517,985 costs bill to £324,029.77 following a personal injury settlement of £149,000 (originally pleaded at £2.5 million). After line-by-line assessment reduced the bill by 34.4% to £339,565.16, the court conducted targeted proportionality reductions. Applying West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust, the judge considered the range of potential outcomes (£149,000–£2.5 million) rather than limiting analysis to the settlement figure, and found claimant vulnerability factors including language barriers and Covid-19 isolation effects. The court rejected defendants’ attempts to relitigate surveillance-based exaggeration allegations during assessment proceedings, confirming such issues cannot be retrospectively determined where parties had agreed settlement terms. Internal communications costs were identified as disproportionate and reduced from £22,946.15 to £10,000 plus VAT through targeted broad-brush reduction, demonstrating the court’s sophisticated approach to achieving proportionate outcomes whilst preserving reasonable costs in appropriate categories.

,

When Is A Solicitor Not a Solicitor?

In Global Sports Data and Technology Group Limited v IPS Law LLP [2025] EWHC (SCCO), the court determined whether the claimant was liable for unpaid legal fees (£159,735.50 plus VAT) under the Solicitors Act 1974, resolving four preliminary costs issues. The central dispute concerned whether an express or implied retainer existed between the parties in relation to “Project Red Card,” a joint venture involving data protection claims for athletes. The claimant argued the relationship was a commercial venture with costs borne by each party, while the defendant asserted a traditional solicitor-client relationship, relying on a draft retainer letter and conduct. Senior Costs Judge Rowley found no retainer existed, emphasizing the 18-month delay in producing the retainer letter, selective document disclosure, and inconsistent evidence from the defendant. The judge concluded the arrangement was a profit-sharing joint venture where parties assumed their own risks, distinguishing it from _Adams v London Improved Motor Coach Builders [1921] KB 495. Points 2 and 3 (on retainer existence) were resolved in the claimant’s favour, rendering Point 1 (bill formatting) moot, and Point 4 (third-party invoices) irrelevant. The court held the claimant had no liability for the invoices.

, , , ,

Amazon CPO Applications | Funding Arrangements And Costs Control In Collective Proceedings

In Hammond & Stephan v Amazon.com Inc [2025] CAT 42, the Competition Appeal Tribunal established new standards for costs oversight in collective proceedings whilst approving litigation funding arrangements subject to specific conditions. The Tribunal addressed four key costs issues: (1) Independent costs scrutiny – finding that proposed class representatives lacked adequate mechanisms to review legal invoices independently of funders, the Tribunal required Professor Stephan to appoint costs lawyers for monthly oversight and Mr Hammond to instruct a costs draftsman for quarterly review, establishing this as standard practice following Bulk Mail Claim Ltd v International Distribution Services [2025] CAT 19; (2) Funder remuneration assessment – whilst declining to reject Mr Hammond’s potentially “excessive” funding structure (including a 15% annual Commitment Fee on £16.9m committed funds) at certification stage, the Tribunal reserved detailed scrutiny for settlement or judgment, endorsing the deferred assessment approach from Gutman v Apple Inc [2025] EWCA Civ 459 and Merricks v Mastercard [2025] CAT 28; (3) Funding adequacy – approving Professor Stephan’s £5-20 million Elliott group guarantee and Mr Hammond’s £16.7 million FourWorld arrangement (against a £19.8 million discounted budget), with £15 million ATE insurance deemed sufficient for adverse costs; and (4) Documentation requirements – establishing that proposed class representatives must evidence steps taken to secure appropriate LFA terms and publish agreements with minimal redactions. The judgment signals enhanced Tribunal scrutiny of costs arrangements whilst maintaining the principle that collective proceedings require adequate funding to proceed effectively.