The court summarily assessed the reasonable costs of a strike-out application at £12,000, awarding 50% to reflect the successful party’s aggressive conduct. The £61,366 claimed was rejected as disproportionate.
In determining whether to order a split trial or the trial of preliminary issues on assumed facts, the court will consider the risk that such an approach may increase costs and delay, particularly where the preliminary issues cannot be entirely divorced from the merits or would require consideration of a substantial body of evidence, and where any appeal would be on hypothetical facts. [27, 29, 31]
When assessing costs on the standard basis, the court must resolve any doubt as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred, or were reasonable and proportionate in amount, in favour of the paying party. [60]
The court may, when summarily assessing costs, determine that the costs claimed for an application are unreasonable and disproportionate to the issue’s importance and value, and may award a significantly reduced sum that it deems to be the reasonable and proportionate cost of the work. [58, 60]
In group litigation involving a substantial inequality of arms and asymmetry of information, the court’s duty to ensure the parties are on an equal footing may inform case management decisions, including orders for early specific disclosure of key known documents to correct that asymmetry and facilitate efficient progression of the claim. [77, 80]
The court expects a high level of realism and co-operation from the parties in group litigation to help further the overriding objective, and conduct falling short of this duty, such as aggressive or tactical behaviour on procedural issues, may be reflected in costs orders. [8.6, 56, 61]
