Summary Assessment Without Opposition | Court Applies Independent Scrutiny to Unopposed Costs Claims

An unopposed costs claim is not an unscrutinised one. The court retains an independent supervisory role on summary assessment regardless of whether the paying party engages.

UK HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE V SAMYUNG ENC CO LIMITED [2026] EWHC 206 (Ch)

In United Kingdom Hydrographic Office v Samyung ENC Co Limited the court determined costs following an unless order application against a defendant that had persistently failed to comply with disclosure obligations and did not attend the hearing or file submissions. On the unless order application, the court awarded indemnity costs but declined to accept the claimant’s proposed summary assessment figures. It applied a 20% reduction to the Statement of Costs to reflect the adjourned summary judgment element, then assessed the balance at 80% rather than the 90% proposed, producing a summarily assessed figure of £73,000. The court awarded standard basis costs for the alternative service application, summarily assessed at £11,000 rather than the full £13,248.09 claimed. On the inquiry costs, the court ordered a payment on account of £235,000 conditional on the unless order being triggered, observing that a detailed assessment was unlikely ever to occur and that this reinforced the importance of a realistic payment on account figure.

I am satisfied that Samyung's conduct and the circumstances of the case are such as to take the situation 'out of the norm' in a way which justifies an order for indemnity costs. All the reasons given above to explain why it is appropriate to grant an unless order show that Samyung's conduct was unreasonable to a high degree. I highlight in particular the inference I have drawn that Samyung has chosen not to comply with the court's orders in relation to disclosure.

Citations

Island Records Ltd v Tring International Plc [1996] 1 W.L.R. 1256 Established the principle that disclosure may be ordered to enable a claimant to plead quantum, requiring a defendant to provide information about sales and other factual matters relevant to damages. Marcan Shipping (London) Ltd v Kefalas [2007] EWCA Civ 463 Clarified that unless orders should be made with care, particularly where the sanction is striking out, which requires justification due to its severity. Walsham Chalet Park Ltd v Tallington Lakes Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1607 Confirmed that Denton principles apply to determining proportionality when imposing the sanction of striking out for non-compliance with procedural obligations. Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906 Set the three-stage test for considering relief from sanctions, which also informs whether striking out is a proportionate response to non-compliance by a party. Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management Ltd [2014] 1 WLR 4495 Affirmed that striking out and entering judgment is justified where a party’s disobedience of court orders undermines the fair conduct of proceedings. Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair [2015] 4 Costs LR 707 Reiterated that striking out for non-compliance should be a last resort, emphasising the need for a continuing breach and the opportunity for compliance through an unless order. Workman v Forrester [2017] EWCA Civ 73 Held that the court may order a quantified judgment sum upon strike out even for unassessed damages, where persistent non-compliance with disclosure orders would impede fair assessment.

Costs budget variation CPR 3.15A promptness significant development unfair prejudice Chancery Division

Costs budgeting inter partes proportionality high hourly rates AI disclosure Patents Court CPR 3E

Beneficiary personal liability section 71(3) Solicitors Act 1974 indemnity costs VAT self-supply SCCO

Summary assessment indemnity costs unless order payment on account disclosure default Chancery Division

Provisional assessment set aside CPR 3.1(7) points of dispute filing duty PD 47 para 14.3 SCCO

Fixed recoverable costs police claims CPR 26.9(10)(e) intentional tort exemption

Trustee indemnity trust fund litigation costs CPR 46.3 Chancery Division

Special circumstances section 70 Solicitors Act 1974 costs assessment application

Unless order impecuniosity evidence requirements in costs proceedings under CPR 3.9

Payment on account determination in high-value group litigation under CPR 44.2

Key Points

Where a party’s conduct in litigation is unreasonable to a high degree, taking the situation “out of the norm”, the court may order costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis. This can include a deliberate choice to frustrate the proceedings by failing to comply with court orders. [104]
On a summary assessment of costs, the court may apply a broad percentage reduction to a claimed total to reflect aspects of the application that were not pursued at the hearing, such as an adjourned summary judgment application. [106-107]
When determining a payment on account of costs following a final judgment, the court will consider the incurred costs as shown in a Precedent H and other relevant statements, and is likely to order a substantial payment where the costs appear reasonably incurred, reasonable in amount, proportionate, and likely to be recovered on a detailed assessment. [110-112]
On a standard basis summary assessment, the court may award a sum lower than the full amount claimed in a Statement of Costs, even where the overall sum is modest and the receiving party has been successful, particularly in the absence of submissions from the paying party. [113]
The court may make a single costs order covering multiple related applications, apportioning the total costs incurred between them on a reasonable percentage basis to reflect the work attributable to each. [102]

"Doing the best I can, I propose to deduct 20% from the costs sought to reflect the fact that the summary judgment aspect of the application has not yet been pursued. Taking 80% of the total claimed of £113,637.73 gives £90,910.18. I consider UKHO's suggestion of taking 90% of that resulting figure to reflect deductions which might be made on detailed assessment to be somewhat ambitious, even for costs assessed on the indemnity basis. Particularly in circumstances where I have not had the benefit of submissions from Samyung in relation to the Statement of Costs, I consider 80% better reflects the level of costs which are recoverable. That gives a figure of £72,728.14, which I will round up to £73,000."

Key Findings In The Case

Samyung’s persistent failure to comply with multiple disclosure orders, including a breach of an unless order, amounted to conduct that was “unreasonable to a high degree” and took the case “out of the norm,” thereby justifying an indemnity costs order in favour of UKHO on the UO/SJ Application [104].
The judge reduced UKHO’s claimed costs of the UO/SJ Application by applying a 20% deduction for the summary judgment elements that were adjourned and a further 20% to reflect factors typically addressed in detailed assessment, resulting in a summary assessment of £73,000 on an indemnity basis [106–108].
The judge ordered a £235,000 payment on account of UKHO’s costs of the Inquiry, finding that the claimant’s incurred costs, including those for the first unless order, were reasonable, proportionate, and likely to be recovered on detailed assessment, based on the updated Precedent H and other cost documents [110–112].
The judge summarily assessed the costs of the Alternative Service (AS) Application at £11,000, refusing to award the full £13,248.09 claimed, despite the modest amount and UKHO’s success, due to the standard basis of assessment and the absence of submissions from Samyung [113].
In addressing the multiple related applications heard together, the court accepted apportionments made by UKHO to divide shared costs (e.g., attendance time and joint preparation) reasonably between the UO/SJ and AS Applications, adopting UKHO’s 90%/10% split without objection [102].

"I agree (and note that paragraph 2(e) of the draft order provided by UKHO omits to state that the costs are payable on the standard basis). UKHO accordingly seeks a payment on account of those costs, particularly bearing in mind that, in the scenario where judgment is entered following non-compliance by Samyung, it is unlikely that there will ever be a detailed assessment."

The Chancery Division’s decision in United Kingdom Hydrographic Office v Samyung ENC Co Limited [2026] EWHC 206 (Ch) addresses the court’s approach to summary assessment of costs, payment on account, and indemnity costs where a defendant has deliberately disengaged from proceedings.

Background

The Claimant, the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO), an executive agency of the Ministry of Defence, brought a claim against the Defendant, Samyung ENC Co Ltd (Samyung), a South Korean company. The dispute concerned Samyung’s breach of licence agreements relating to UKHO’s Admiralty Vector Chart Service (AVCS) data. Samyung had copied, decrypted, and converted this data into its own ‘S+Map’ format, which it then installed on navigation devices sold globally and made available for download.

On 8 November 2022, Sir Paul Morgan granted summary judgment to UKHO on liability for breach of contract and ordered an inquiry as to damages (the Inquiry). Samyung was also ordered to provide Island v Tring disclosure regarding sales. Following a Costs and Case Management Conference on 29 January 2025, Master Pester gave directions for trial, including an order for Extended Disclosure by 7 May 2025. A separate order (paragraph 10 of the CCMC Order) required Samyung to provide certain information about its disclosure process (the Paragraph 10 Information) by 19 February 2025.

Samyung failed to provide the Paragraph 10 Information. On 3 March 2025, Deputy Master Arkush ordered compliance by 14 March 2025 and gave UKHO permission to apply for an unless order. Samyung again failed to comply. On 28 April 2025, Master Pester made a First Unless Order providing that if Samyung did not supply the Paragraph 10 Information by 8 May 2025, the scope of its Extended Disclosure search would be automatically defined by parameters identified in that order, drawn from UKHO’s proposals. Samyung would be required to provide Extended Disclosure on that basis together with a confirmatory statement. Samyung did not comply.

During this period, Samyung’s solicitors, Hill Dickinson, applied to come off the record in February 2025, citing financial difficulties and an intention to file for “default”. Samyung did not subsequently provide a UK address for service as required. In March 2025, Samyung applied for rehabilitation proceedings in South Korea, and an Administrator was appointed in May. The court later inferred that Samyung’s non-compliance with its disclosure obligations was not the result of oversight or forces beyond its control, but that it had chosen not to comply as part of a strategy to delay or derail the proceedings.

On 11 June 2025, UKHO issued the UO/SJ Application, seeking an unless order that, unless Samyung complied with disclosure, its Defence be struck out and judgment entered for approximately £61.7 million plus interest and costs, or alternatively summary judgment. On 15 July 2025, UKHO made a separate application (the AS Application) for prospective orders permitting alternative service of documents, given the difficulties in serving Samyung.

The hearing of the UO/SJ Application in July 2025 was vacated following a temporary stay granted by the Insolvency and Companies Court after Samyung applied for recognition of the Korean rehabilitation proceedings. That stay was lifted by ICC Judge Barber on 11 December 2025, who found the English Inquiry was the better and quicker forum to resolve quantum. Despite representations from Hill Dickinson that disclosure work was underway, Samyung took no steps to comply. In December 2025 the Korean rehabilitation proceedings were cancelled, but Samyung immediately applied for new ones. Hill Dickinson informed the court they were without instructions. Samyung did not attend the hearing on 23 January 2026.

Costs Issues Before the Court

Three costs issues arose. First, the costs of the UO/SJ Application, including the appropriate basis and summary assessment. Second, whether UKHO was entitled to its costs of the entire Inquiry if the unless order was triggered, and the amount of any payment on account. Third, the costs of the AS Application. The court was required to determine all three issues without the benefit of any submissions from Samyung.

The Parties’ Positions

UKHO sought costs of the UO/SJ Application on the indemnity basis, summarily assessed at 90% of a total Statement of Costs of £113,637.73, equating to £102,273.96. Where items on the Statement of Costs related to both the UO/SJ Application and the AS Application (such as hearing attendance), they had been apportioned 90% to the former and 10% to the latter. Indemnity costs were said to be justified because Samyung had deliberately chosen not to comply with court orders, conduct that was unreasonable to a high degree and took the case out of the norm. UKHO submitted that the hourly rates claimed were below guideline rates and the overall sum modest given the complexity of the application and an abortive hearing in July 2025.

On the Inquiry costs, UKHO sought an order that if judgment were entered following non-compliance, Samyung should pay its costs on the standard basis, together with a payment on account of £235,241.58, representing 70% of the total incurred costs of £336,059.40. That total comprised the updated Precedent H figure of £325,501.59 and £10,557.81 for the First Unless Order application, the costs of which had been reserved at the time that order was made.

For the AS Application, UKHO sought summary assessment on the standard basis in the full amount of its Statement of Costs, £13,248.09.

Samyung did not attend and filed no evidence or submissions in response to any of the costs claims.

The Court’s Decision

Costs of the UO/SJ Application

The court awarded UKHO its costs on the indemnity basis. The same findings that justified the unless order — principally the inference that Samyung had deliberately chosen not to provide disclosure as part of a strategy to delay or derail the proceedings — were held equally to justify a finding that its conduct was unreasonable to a degree sufficient to take the case out of the norm.

However, the court did not accept UKHO’s proposed figures. Recognising that only the unless order aspect of the application had been resolved at this stage (the summary judgment aspect having been adjourned to a future expedited hearing), the court applied a 20% reduction to the total Statement of Costs, rather than the 10% UKHO had proposed. The judge considered that the witness statements and skeleton argument relating to the summary judgment aspect engaged more complex legal issues than the unless order, and that a 10% reduction understated the costs properly referable to that unresolved element. Applying an 80% allowance to the total of £113,637.73 produced £90,910.18.

The court then declined to summarily assess the costs at 90% of that reduced figure, as UKHO had proposed. Even in the absence of any submissions from Samyung on the Statement of Costs, the judge considered that 80% better reflected the level of costs which were recoverable. Applying 80% to £90,910.18 produced £72,728.14, which the court rounded up to £73,000.

Costs of the Inquiry

The court confirmed that UKHO would be entitled to its costs of the Inquiry on the standard basis in the event the unless order was triggered and Samyung’s defence struck out. The judge noted that UKHO’s own draft order had omitted the qualification that costs were payable on the standard basis, a drafting point requiring correction.

On the payment on account, the court accepted that the total incurred costs of £336,059.40 were reasonably incurred, reasonable in amount, and proportionate given the scale of the claim and Samyung’s conduct throughout. The hourly rates were below guideline rates. The court was satisfied UKHO would recover at least £235,000 on a detailed assessment and ordered that sum on account, conditional on the unless order being triggered. The judge observed that in the scenario where judgment was entered following non-compliance, a detailed assessment was unlikely ever to occur, which reinforced the importance of a realistic payment on account figure.

Costs of the AS Application

The court awarded UKHO its costs of the AS Application on the standard basis. Whilst the claimed sum of £13,248.09 was modest in the overall scheme of the litigation, the judge declined to summarily assess costs at 100% of the amount claimed. Even in the absence of opposing submissions, the court applied its own judgment and assessed the costs at £11,000.

Provisional Assessment Set Aside Under CPR 3.1(7) For Material Breach Of Filing Duty

When A Judicial Review Claim Is Discontinued | Can The Defendant Recover Costs Beyond The Acknowledgment Of Service Stage?

Part 36 Offers Cannot Displace The Solicitors Act One-Fifth Costs Rule

CPR 26.9(10)(e) | Wrongful Interference With Goods Against Police Mandates Multi-Track Allocation | Part 36 Acceptance Does Not Oust Fixed Costs

Does Removal As Trustee Always Mean Loss Of Indemnity?

Inadequate Estimate Fails To Establish Special Circumstances Under s70(3) Where Client Would Have Made The Same Choices

Specialist costs services across the UK

TMC Legal provides expert costs drafting, negotiaton and costs budgeting services together with representation in detailed assessment hearings. Our experienced costs lawyers and law costs draftsmen act nationwide. Contact us today.