Civil Costs Case Law Update February 2024

Civil Costs Case Law Update – February 2024

L v O [2024] EWFC 6 -Coob J- 26 January 2024. On an application for security for costs, Cobb J held that although the husband in 2023 had spent more time in London than elsewhere, on the facts, he was resident out of the jurisdiction for the purposes of the Family Procedure Rules 2020 Part 20 (2)r.20.7(2)(a)(i), so the jurisdictional gateway provision had been satisfied.  The wife sought security of £637,882. Taking a view which reflected the uncertainties of litigation and any potential reduction on detailed assessment, security was ordered for 75% of that sum being £480,000.     

Lone v Petrou [2024] EWHC 153(KB) 29 January -Ritchie J. Dismissing an application for permission to appeal against decisions taken below on a s.70  Solicitors Act 1974 assessment as being “totally without merit”,  the judge gave guidance about practical matters on such an assessment, such as charging for incoming letters, whether conceded items should count under the “one-fifth” rule, the correct starting point for working out the amount disallowed and “special circumstances” for departing from s.70(9) when dealing with the costs of the Solicitors Act proceedings.         

Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2024] EWCA Civ 100 Bean, Moylan, King LJJ – 8 February. In financial remedy proceedings, a costs order was made in favour of a successful appellant. However, a significant discount was required to reflect the court’s findings of litigation misconduct against him, which included having to increase the time estimate for the hearing by half a day to accommodate his numerous unmeritorious ancillary applications.

Duke of Sussex v MGN Ltd [2024] EWHC 274 (Ch) Fancourt J – 9 February. Following the trial of the lead action in the “’phone hacking” litigation, the court was required to deal with the incidence of costs, save for those of the Duke of Sussex (action continuing). The court made costs orders going both ways, dependent upon whether individual claims had been defeated by limitation, had failed to beat Part 36 offers, or had been exaggerated, but with MGN to pay all the common costs on the indemnity basis: all the claimants had been vindicated by the generic findings that MGN had illegally hacked their ‘phones and had attempted to conceal the truth and in particular, the extent of the unlawful and illegal activity.

KS v VS [2024] EWHC 278 (Fam) Arbuthnot J -12 February. The husband applied for £331,000 costs following his successful application to stay divorce and financial remedy proceedings. He argued that the civil “Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs” should not form part of a family court’s consideration in making a summary assessment. The judge held that the Guide was helpful as it set out what a reasonable and proportionate hourly rate was in the various types of cases that came before the court.            

Topalsson GmbH v Rolls Royce Motor Cars Ltd [2024] EWHC 297 (TCC) Constable J – 13 February 2024. The Defendant succeeded in a Funding Disclosure application for a non-party costs order under s. 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.                 

Woolley v MOD [2024] EWHC 304 (KB) Kerr J- 16 February. In a rare successful appeal against case management decisions on costs budgeting, the court held that the judge below when budgeting the claimant’s personal injury action costs, had made a serious procedural or other irregularity having closed her mind following her refusal to entertain any comparison with items in the defendant’s budget. Its budget was not intrinsically irrelevant, even if it had been agreed. The costs budget was sent back for a different judge to fix.

Stoop (t/a Warwick Risk Management) v Johnson  [2024] EWHC 286 (Ch-23 February).  Elizabeth Jones KC dealt with whether an agreement was a damages based agreement (DBA) and if so, whether the success fee was reasonable. She held that the agreement did not comply with the DBA Regulations 2013 and was unenforceable, but if that were wrong, it related to family proceedings. Accordingly it was also unenforceable being in breach of s 58AA(4)(aa) Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.