Elliot Walker, Author at TMC Legal Limited

About Elliot Walker

This author has not written his bio yet.
But we are proud to say that Elliot Walker contributed 70 entries already.

Entries by Elliot Walker

Case Law, Commercial Litigation, Costs Against Successful Party, Indemnity Costs, New Costs Blog, Payment on Account

Claimant Awarded Costs Against First, Second, and Sixth Defendants on Joint and Several Basis Following Successful Liability Judgment, With £20 Million Interim Payment Ordered on Standard Assessment Basis.

IBM United Kingdom Limited v LzLabs GmbH & Ors [2025] EWHC 998 (TCC) addressed complex costs proceedings following a substantial commercial litigation. The court considered multiple costs issues under CPR 44.2, determining that IBM, as the substantially successful party, was entitled to recover costs from the First, Second, and Sixth Defendants on a standard basis. The court rejected the Defendants’ arguments for reducing costs, finding that the fact IBM did not succeed on every single issue was insufficient grounds for a proportionate reduction. The court ordered joint and several liability for costs against the First, Second, and Sixth Defendants, noting their intertwined claims and common defence strategy. Critically, while the Claimant sought indemnity costs based on allegations of deliberate concealment and obstructive litigation conduct, the court declined to award indemnity costs, characterizing the litigation as complex but not unreasonably conducted. The court ordered an interim payment of £20 million on account of costs, allowing the Defendants until 1 October 2025 to make the payment, considering potential financial hardship. The costs order explicitly excluded the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants, with the court finding their defence costs were minimal and not warranting a separate costs award.

Case Law, New Costs Blog, Personal Injury, Solicitor & Client Costs

No Deviation From ‘Costs Follow The Event’ Following s68(1) Application Where Solicitor Failed To Respond To Multiple Requests For Final Statute Bill

Franklin v Your Lawyers Limited [2025] EWHC 984 (SCCO) addressed the incidence of costs following an order for the delivery of a final statutory bill under section 68(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974. The claimant had requested a final bill from his former solicitors following a successful personal injury claim. Proceedings had been issued under section 68(1) after repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain the bill. Said bill was then delivered before the matter came before the court. Only costs remained to be determined. To that end, the court considered the parties’ conduct under CPR 44.2, examining pre-action communications and procedural interactions. Acting Senior Costs Judge Rowley rejected the defendant’s arguments that the claimant’s conduct warranted an alternative costs order, finding that the claimant had reasonably pursued the bill’s delivery through progressively formal communications and had complied with pre-action protocols. The court determined that the claimant was the successful party, applying the general rule that costs follow the event, and awarded costs to the claimant to be assessed on the standard basis. Critically, the judgment found that the absence of subsequent assessment proceedings (under section 70) should not prejudice the costs recovery for the successful section 68 application.

Case Law, New Costs Blog

Security For Costs Application Rejected Where Defence And Counterclaim Are Struck Out And No Detailed Cost Breakdown Provided

HNW Lending Limited v Nicole Stacey Ann Lawrence [2025] EWHC 908 (Ch) addressed a complex commercial lending dispute involving security for costs and procedural applications. The High Court considered Ms Lawrence’s application for security for costs against HNW Lending Limited, which sought £300,000 for her costs and £500,000 for Setfords Solicitors’ costs, predicated on an alleged inability of HNW to satisfy a potential adverse costs order. The court comprehensively rejected the security for costs application, primarily due to the concurrent striking out of Ms Lawrence’s Defence and Counterclaim. The judge noted that had the application been otherwise meritorious, Ms Lawrence would have been required to provide a detailed costs breakdown rather than a mere assertion of estimated expenses, and the basis for Setfords’ cost claim remained entirely unexplained. Critically, the court’s determination was influenced by the successful strike-out of Ms Lawrence’s substantive defence, rendering the security for costs application procedurally inappropriate. The judgment emphasised the necessity of providing substantive evidentiary support for security for costs applications, consistent with established civil procedure principles governing such ancillary relief.

Case Law, Costs Against Successful Party, New Costs Blog, Payment on Account, Proportionality

Proportionate Disclosure | Costs Order Reduced To 70% Following Substantial Reversal of Disclosure Orders On Appeal

Alesayi v Bank Audi [2025] EWHC 919 (KB) addressed a costs dispute arising from a jurisdiction challenge disclosure application. The case concerned a Saudi-British claimant’s attempt to obtain disclosure from a Lebanese bank in proceedings concerning the transfer of funds, with the defendant challenging the English court’s jurisdiction under CPR Part 11. Following the appeal judgment that substantially reversed Master McCloud’s original disclosure orders, the court was required to determine nine discrete costs issues, principally focusing on the appropriate costs consequences below and on appeal. The court concluded that while the claimant was successful at first instance, the defendant substantially succeeded on appeal, with most disclosure orders being either wholly or partially overturned. Applying CPR Part 44 principles, the court awarded the defendant 65 per cent of its appeal costs, varied the original costs order below to 70 per cent in the claimant’s favour, and ordered a 70 per cent payment on account of costs. The judgment emphasised the need for proportionality in jurisdiction challenge proceedings, critiquing the extensive and disproportionate disclosure sought, which would effectively transform a Part 11 hearing into an inappropriate “mini-trial”. The court’s approach reflected a nuanced assessment of the parties’ relative success, conduct, and the broader principles governing costs awards in complex interlocutory proceedings.

Case Law, Detailed Assessment, New Costs Blog, Solicitor & Client Costs

“Endeavour’ To Notify” ≠ Duty To Halt | Court Upholds Solicitors’ Fees Above Initial Estimate

Spanakis v Schillings International LLP [2025] EWHC 873 (KB) addressed a costs assessment appeal concerning a solicitor’s fee estimate. The High Court considered whether Schillings International LLP’s billing exceeded a contractually provided cost estimate for legal services. The appellant challenged the Costs Judge’s determination that the respondent’s bill of £15,000 plus VAT was reasonable, despite substantially exceeding the initial £10,000 Phase One estimate. The court examined the contractual obligations relating to cost estimates, applying principles from Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Withers LLP regarding client reliance and reasonable expectations. Key issues included the respondent’s duty to notify the client of potential cost overruns and the appellant’s reliance on the original estimate. The judge found that the respondent’s email of 28 March 2022 sufficiently updated the appellant about potential cost overruns, and the appellant continued to instruct the solicitor despite being informed. Furthermore, the court determined that the appellant did not demonstrate sufficient reliance on the original estimate to limit the recoverable costs. Accordingly, Mrs Justice Tipples dismissed the appeal, confirming the Costs Judge’s original assessment that the full bill was reasonable and recoverable under the parties’ contractual agreement.

Case Law, Costs Budgeting & CMC, Indemnity Costs, New Costs Blog, Part 36

Part 36 Additional Amount Is “All Or Nothing” | Maximum £75,000 Awarded After Rejected Offers

In Barry v Barry the court determined costs following a trial in which the claimants had beaten their own Part 36 offers. The central costs issue was whether the defendant could resist the full consequences of CPR 36.17(4), including the additional amount of up to £75,000. The court held that the additional amount is an “all or nothing” entitlement: it must be awarded unless the defendant establishes that doing so would be unjust. Here, the offers were genuine, made pre-issue after rejected mediation, and the defendant failed to discharge that burden. The court awarded the maximum £75,000 additional amount, indemnity costs, and enhanced interest at 8% above base rate. Separately, the court refused budget variations for disclosure and witness statements due to lack of promptness under CPR 3.15A, but allowed variations for trial preparation following the defendant’s late amendment. The judgment confirms the high threshold for “oppressive behaviour” under PD 3D paragraph 13, requiring proof of intentional causation rather than merely aggressive litigation.

Case Law, Detailed Assessment, Indemnity Costs, New Costs Blog, Non-Party Costs

Common Defence Costs | No Division Required Between Co-Defendants Where One Party Foots The Bill

Rollerteam Ltd v Siddiqi [2025] EWHC 612 (Ch) was an appeal from the SCCO following Warby J’s dismissal of most harassment, conspiracy and reputation-injury claims and costs order in favour of all five defendants. Only D4, however, discharged the joint-retainer bill of £75,228.43 on behalf of itself and its co-defendants and served a bill asserting 100 % of common costs (with only a 10 % reduction for harassment work). Costs Judge Rowley struck out D4’s bill for failing to apportion costs under the unless order requiring proportionate allocation. On appeal, Rajah J held that D4 had substantially complied by providing clear allocation notes, that only the party who actually paid could recover “the defendants’ costs” in its own name, and that the judge’s focus on what was “realistically” recoverable was misplaced. The decision confirms that where co-defendants agree one will meet all costs, that defendant may assess and recover the full costs, subject only to the indemnity principle.

Case Law, New Costs Blog

Costs Budget Deemed Illusory Due to Deliberate Copying of Figures and Failure to Provide Accurate or Credible Explanation for Discrepancies

Hunt v Oceania Capital Reserves Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 837 (Ch) addressed critical issues surrounding procedural compliance in costs budgeting and relief from sanctions. The case concerned an application by IPS Law LLP and Mr Christopher Farnell for relief from sanctions after failing to file a compliant Precedent H costs budget within the prescribed timeframe. Master Brightwell examined the defendants’ costs budget, identifying significant irregularities, including figures that closely mirrored the claimant’s budget and appeared to have been copied without genuine consideration. The court found the breach particularly serious due to the inaccurate budget and the signed statement of truth, which compromised the integrity of the budgeting process. Despite the defendants’ assertions of technical difficulties, the court deemed their explanations unsatisfactory and lacking credibility. Applying the Denton test, Master Brightwell concluded that the breach was substantial, the explanations inadequate, and the circumstances did not justify granting relief. Consequently, the application for relief from sanctions was dismissed, with the defendants potentially limited to recovering only court fees, emphasizing the court’s commitment to procedural compliance and the importance of accurate, truthful documentation in legal proceedings.

Case Law, Detailed Assessment, Fixed & Predictable Costs, New Costs Blog, Part 36, Personal Injury

Allocation to Multi-Track Automatically Disapplies Fixed Costs Regime, Enabling Standard Basis Cost Assessment for Part 36 Offer Acceptance

Attersley v UK Insurance Limited [2025] EWHC 884 (KB) addressed complex procedural issues regarding costs recovery in a multi-track personal injury claim originally commenced under the Road Traffic Accident Protocol. The High Court considered the interplay between CPR 45.29B and Part 36 costs provisions following a claimant’s late acceptance of a Part 36 offer. Mrs Justice Stacey allowed the claimant’s appeal, holding that upon allocation to the multi-track, the fixed costs regime is automatically disapplied retrospectively, entitling the claimant to standard basis costs up to the offer’s expiry date. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that Part 36.20 should prevail, finding that the Qader principle of excluding fixed costs for multi-track cases applied comprehensively. The judgment emphasised the legislative intention behind the fixed costs regime, which was not designed for complex, high-value claims, and provided a purposive interpretation avoiding potential absurd outcomes that might disincentivise claimants from using pre-action protocols. The case was remitted to the County Court for detailed costs assessment, with no specific guidance provided on assessment principles.

Case Law, Detailed Assessment, New Costs Blog, Solicitor & Client Costs

Solicitors Act Assessment Claim Dismissed Due To Delay And Concurrent Part 7 Proceedings

Captivatiun Limited brought a Part 8 Solicitors Act claim against Orr Litchfield Solicitors Limited seeking a detailed assessment of two invoices totalling £13,518, substantially delayed after the original bills were issued in May and September 2022. The Defendant sought to dismiss the proceedings, arguing the claim was out of time and an abuse of process, particularly given concurrent Part 7 debt recovery proceedings already in progress. Costs Judge Nagalingam dismissed the Part 8 claim, finding the Claimant could not establish the “special circumstances” required to proceed with a late assessment under Section 70(3)(c) of the Solicitors Act 1974. The judge determined the existing Part 7 proceedings already provided adequate mechanisms to investigate the Claimant’s allegations regarding the invoices, including disclosure, witness evidence and a fast-track trial. Consequently, the Part 8 claim was deemed unnecessary and potentially duplicative, with the Defendant awarded costs of the application and response.