Civil Costs Case Law Update – November 2023
Morrison Water Services Ltd v Browning [2023] EWHC 2725 (Ch) 31 October 2023 Judge Mark West- 31 October 2023 provides a useful reminder that Winding up Petitions should not be used to pursue debts that are disputed. CPR Part 7 should be used instead.
Omni Bridgeway v Bugsby Property (Comm) Jacobs J -3 November 2023. PACCAR having decided that Litigation Funding Agreements are Damages Based Agreements and are unenforceable unless they comply with the DBA Regulations, Jacobs J refused Bugsby’s application to fortify Therium’s cross-undertaking in damages, following the court’s granting of injunctions freezing the £27m damages recovered. Bugsby had failed to establish a good arguable case that the claimed loss would be suffered due to the injunctions and declined to order fortification from the litigation funders in the sums of £3.2m and £4,093,246.48.
Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust v GH [2023] EWCOP 50 Poole J -6 November. Notwithstanding COPR 2017 r.19.3, that no costs order would generally be made in the Court of Protection where personal welfare is concerned, the court held that, taking into account the degree of unreasonableness and the extent of its delay, and its impact, the Trust should pay 80% of the Official Receiver’s costs.
Parsdome Holdings Ltd v Plastic Energy Global SL [2023] EWHC 2851 (Comm) Andrew Baker J 10 November. Summary assessment of costs of a two hour security for costs (ordered at £373,000) application. At £100,000, the costs were “eye watering”. Junior counsel only allowed at £15,000 and £25,000 for the solicitors, total £40,000. If the plan was to spend £100,000, the client would need to understand that a judge dealing with costs was highly unlikely to award any substantial percentage of what had been incurred.
Amjad v UK Insurance Ltd [2023] EWHC 2832 (KB) Ritchie J 10 November. The claimant had CPR 44.14 QOCS protection, but under CPR 44.16(2), the claim has been made for the benefit of a person, namely a credit hire company (CHC). The defendant’s Part 36 offer had not been beaten, but the judge below had been wrong to dilute the QOCS protection. The CHC, not the claimant, gained the “benefit” of any award under the terms of the CHC agreement. Decision below capping the costs payable by the claimant at £15,000 reversed.
Tan v Idlibi [2023] EWHC 2840 (KB) Ritchie J 13 November. On appeal, the court dismissed the Claimant’s application for relief from sanctions in relation to a late delivered costs budget thereby leaving the effects of CPR r.3.14 in place. This prevented the recovery of future costs of £18,500. The budget was required for service by 1st December 2022 (a Thursday). The attempt at service on the 5th was on the following Monday, using a used the wrong (not agreed) method of service, namely email. The court below had followed the sanctions set out clearly in the Rules for failing to serve a costs budget on time. Appeal dismissed.
Boodia v Richard Slade & Co [2023] 2963 (KB) Freedman J -21 November. Did a clear contractual term in a retainer between a solicitor and client reserving the right deliver an interim statutory bill, need to spell out the legal consequences? It did not. The bills could be final statutory bills without the need for “informed consent”, and the Court ought to give effect to the contractually agreed retainer and to the entitlement of the solicitors to have negotiated such terms.
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil CBC [2023] EWCA Civ 1416 -Carr LCJ, Vos MR, Birss LJ 29 November. The court can lawfully stay proceedings for, or make an order that, parties engage in a non-court based dispute resolution process, provided that the claimant’s right to proceed to a judicial hearing is not impaired and is proportionate to achieving the legitimate aim of settling the dispute fairly, quickly and at reasonable cost.
