Entries by Toby Moreton

Costs Denied | Voluntary Bill Applications Fall Under The Criminal Costs Regime

In IPE Marble Arch Limited v Anthony Moran, the High Court dealt with the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to award costs to the defendant, Mr Moran, following the dismissal of a voluntary bill of indictment application brought by IPE Marble Arch Limited. The defendant sought indemnity costs pursuant to section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, while the prosecution argued that the matter fell within the criminal costs regime, which provided no power to award such costs in the High Court. The defendant contended that the civil costs regime applied since the voluntary bill procedure was neither governed by the criminal costs regime nor explicitly excluded under the Civil Procedure Rules, and argued that the prosecution had acted recklessly in bringing a case it knew or ought to have known would fail. However, the prosecution maintained that as the voluntary bill process was a core part of criminal proceedings, the High Court could not deviate from the statutory criminal costs framework without exceptional conditions justifying a different approach. The court ultimately agreed with the prosecution, concluding that the application fell within the definition of a “criminal cause” under section 51(5) and that no exceptions applied to allow costs to be awarded outside the statutory criminal framework.

Aarhus Costs Caps Upheld | Court Reaffirms Limits in Environmental Litigation

Mr. and Mrs. Waterhouse sought leave to appeal against a planning inspector’s decision upholding enforcement notices for unauthorized residential use of a forestry container. Their application was filed 18 days late, necessitating an extension of time. The court considered issues of costs under the Aarhus Convention, including whether to reduce the default cost caps and how to allocate costs between the two respondents. The judge refused the extension of time due to lack of viable grounds of appeal, maintained the default Aarhus cost caps, and awarded costs to both respondents up to the £10,000 cap. The case highlighted the importance of adhering to appeal deadlines in planning enforcement cases and the court’s approach to Aarhus cost caps and allocation of costs in multi-respondent cases.

No Order As To Costs Despite Successful Application | Novelty And Conduct Considered

In Titan Wealth Holdings Limited & Ors v Okunola, the High Court dismissed an application for a protective injunction sought by the Claimants to prevent the Defendant from sending abusive communications to their lawyers. The court found that while the Claimants’ lawyers might have a credible harassment claim, there was no jurisdictional basis for the Claimants to seek an injunction on their behalf. The judge held that the application did not fit within established exceptions to the cause of action rule and that the Claimants’ lawyers would need to make their own application if they wished to restrain the Defendant’s communications. Despite dismissing the application, the court made no order as to costs, considering the Defendant’s conduct and the novel nature of the application. Permission to appeal was granted due to the lack of authority on this issue.

CPR 38.6 | Post-Discontinuance Conduct Can Be Considered

In Charles Elphicke v Times Media Limited [2024] EWHC 2595 (KB), the court addressed costs issues following the discontinuance of a defamation claim by a former MP against The Times. The key issues were whether to depart from the usual costs order on discontinuance and how to address alleged misconduct, including the Times’ failure to preserve evidence before discontinuance and, after discontinuance, the misuse of witness statements in publications and social media, misrepresenting their content and breaching Rule 32.12. The court held that conduct after discontinuance could be considered under CPR 38.6, finding that these failures were sufficiently serious to justify departing from the usual order. The claimant was ordered to pay 80% of the defendant’s costs.

Solicitor Had No Contractual Right To Render Statute Bills

In Guest Supplies Intl Limited v Spector Constant & Williams Limited [2024] EWHC 2450 (SCCO), the claimant challenged its former solicitors bills. As is often the case, the first round of argument centered on whether the solicitors had a contractual right to raise interim statute bills and, if not, whether a “Chamberlain bill” had been created. Costs Judge Nagalingham found no contractual right to render interim statute bills, as the retainer documents lacked explicit agreement and the language used was ambiguous. The invoices did not qualify as interim statute bills due to insufficient narratives and overlapping date ranges. A Chamberlain bill was not established because the invoices could not be considered final for the periods they covered, and the judge rejected the notion that providing breakdowns later could retroactively make them compliant. The judge also considered issues surrounding the capped fee arrangement and costs claimed outside the cap. Even if a Chamberlain bill had been found, the judge indicated special circumstances would have justified an assessment. The judge ordered the delivery of a final statute bill and cash account.

s63(4) Arbitration Act 1996 | Application Required Before SCCO Can Assess Costs

Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v John Forster Emmott concerned the jurisdiction of the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) to assess costs arising from an arbitration. The claimant attempted to commence detailed assessment proceedings without first making an application under section 63(4) of the Arbitration Act 1996, despite the arbitration tribunal having ceased to function. The court ruled that the provisions of section 63 continued to apply even after the tribunal’s cessation, and that the claimant’s failure to make the required application rendered their attempt to invoke the SCCO’s jurisdiction invalid. This decision emphasizes the ongoing relevance of the Arbitration Act’s procedural requirements in costs matters, even when the original tribunal is no longer operational.

No Relief For Late Filed Costs Budget | Application To Set Aside Appeal Order Refused

Zhang and anor v Deng and anor [2024] EWHC 2392 (KB) addressed an application to set aside an order relating to costs budgeting. At a CCMC, Master Yoxall had granted the First Respondent relief from sanctions, allowing reliance on a late-filed Precedent H and dispensing with costs budgeting. The Appellants successfully appealed, arguing the costs budget wasn’t properly filed or served, and that dispensing with budgeting was erroneous. Saini J overturned Master Yoxall’s order, applying CPR 3.14 to treat the Claimant’s budget as comprising only court fees. The First Respondent, absent from this appeal hearing, then sought to set aside Saini J’s order, claiming he was unaware of the appeal hearing. Mrs Justice Hill considered whether to admit a late witness statement (Bahia 2) explaining the non-attendance and whether to set aside Saini J’s order. Ultimately, she admitted Bahia 2 but dismissed the application to set aside, upholding Saini J’s decision, finding that the First Respondent lacked a good reason for non-attendance at the appeal hearing, had weak prospects on the merits of the appeal, and that setting aside the order would be inconsistent with the overriding objective.