Civil Costs Case Law Update August 2023
CC -v- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWHC 1905 (KB) Ritchie J 13 July 2023. Part 36. Where the successful claimant had beaten the periodical payments part of her offer but had failed to beat her lump sum offer, so the combined Part 36 offer was not beaten, the CPR 36.17(4) rewards were not appropriate. She had not done better at trial in money terms where one part had been beaten but the other had not.
Rosemary Chapman v MID and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWHC 1871 (KB) Hill J 20 July 2023. An offer to settle at 90% of the damages assessed on a 100% liability basis, was a valid Part 36 offer and it was not unjust for the CPR 36.17(4) benefits to apply.
Wright v Coinbase [2023] EWHC 1893(Ch) Mellor J 25 July. Security ordered under CPR 25 where there was no prospect of the passing off claims being stifled and there ought would be no difficulty for the claimants in putting up the funds if there were to be any truth in their evidence.
Krishna Holdco Ltd Gowrie Holdings Ltd [2023] EWHC 1943 (Ch) Adam Johnson J 27 July. An application for return after trial of £6.3m security for costs paid into court under CPR 25 was refused. Whilst there had been a material change of circumstances so as to justify a reconsideration of the exercise of discretion, no material change had occurred as regards the threshold of whether there was reason to believe that the Claimant would be unable to pay the Defendant’s costs if ordered to do so.
Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima [2023] EWHC 1923 (Ch) Michael Green J 27 July 2023. In an action in which the judge considered the anticipated spending to be “eye-wateringly high”, the court queried whether any meaningful assessment of the parties’ future costs could be made in a case of such size and complexity save in very broad terms. Nonetheless, costs budgets were set for the counterclaimant’s budget for disclosure (£1.467m), trial preparation (£0.5m solicitors, £4.4m counsel), trial (£2,205,415).
Ramji v Graham John Harvey (in his capacity as Executor of the estate of Sugrim Orlando Ramji Deceased [2023] EWHC 1937 (Ch) HHJ Monty KC 27 July. Order made that the claimant and ninth defendant pay the costs of action on the indemnity basis where those parties had knowingly lied in an attempt to gain a financial advantage, and had perpetuated those lies in their written and oral evidence. Payments on account ordered of 80 % of the costs (being £69,000) rather than 90% as there had been no costs budgeting.
Afriyie v Commissioner of Police for the City of London (Re Costs) [2023] EWHC 1974 (KB), 28 July Hill J. The Commissioner would not be permitted to enforce her costs order against the losing claimant under CPR 44.14. The Claimant had brought claims for assault, battery, and misfeasance in public office, arising from an act of tasering, which had caused him personal injuries and involved the use of potentially lethal force. Although it was thus a “mixed” claim, in the round, it was an action for personal injury and the claimant was entitled to QOCS protection.
Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 131 Peel J 4 August 2023. In financial remedy proceedings in which findings had been made against the wife of multiple instances of litigation misconduct, the usual “no costs” rule was departed from. In terms of open proposals, the wife had offered a 50/50 outcome which the court had adopted and on occasion the husband had overplayed claimed his losses, and his position on child maintenance been found by to be unreasonable. It was appropriate to make an award against the wife of 50% of the husband’s costs on the indemnity basis, those costs to be summarily assessed.
