Civil Costs Case Law Update – November 2024
Parsdome Holdings Ltd v Plastic Energy Global SL [2024] EWCA Civ 1293) – 29 October 2024. The Court of Appeal upheld the court below (see [2024] Costs LR 87) when ordering security for costs, which had specified that payment into court had to result in cleared funds being received by the Court Funds Office within a deadline. Under CPR 25.12(3) the court making the order for security could direct the manner in which, and the time within which, the security had to be given. There was no reason in principle why the court could not order that a payment into court had to result in cleared funds being received by the CFO within a deadline. That was particularly so where time was of the essence.
Director of Public Prosecutions v Northampton Magistrates’ Court [2024] EWHC 2860 (Admin) – 29 October. In judicial review proceedings, the issue for Eyre J was whether he had the power to make a costs order in favour of the claimant following his successful application for judicial review of a district judge’s decision as to the costs of criminal proceedings. He held that in judicial review claims involving criminal causes, there was a choice between the regime under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and the regime under the Senior Courts Act 1981. The 1985 Act regime was to be applied save in exceptional circumstances. On the facts of the case, he had no power to award costs and he dismissed the application.
FILATONA TRADING LIMITED v QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN UK LLP [2024] EWHC 2751 (Comm) – 30 October. Calver J departed from the general order in Norwich Pharmaceutical applications that the respondent should have its costs. He held that the respondent law firm had acted unreasonably in refusing to answer questions as to the circumstances in which the material to be disclosed had been obtained and whether any steps had been taken to confirm its authenticity. For that reason, the firm’s costs were reduced by 20%.
FXS (through his father and litigation friend JLM) v THE MULBERRY BUSH ORGANISATION LTD [2024] EWHC 2844 (KB) – 8 November. After assessing the claimant’s damages for tortious acts committed by the defendant and ordering it to pay costs, Ms Margaret Obi permitted at trial, an upward variation of the budget under CPR 3.15A. The trial had lasted nine days which had been unforeseen, and the budgets were approved in the increased sums claimed, with those costs to be assessed if not agreed.
AB v Social Work England [2024] EWHC 2874 (Admin) – 12 November. Sweeting J assessed the successful defendant’s costs following an appeal against a decision of Social Work England to remove the claimant’s name from the Register of Social Workers. In considering the reasonableness and proportionality of the respondent’s costs, he applied a broad brush and reduced the schedule of costs by 25%.
White v Plymouth County Council [2024] EWHC 2854 (Admin) -13 November. Having dismissed an application for contempt against the local authority on the grounds that it had breached an injunction to cease tree felling, Sheldon J held that the claimant was entitled to costs protection under the Aarhus Convention. An Aarhus claim was defined in CPR 46.24 and when read sensibly, included interim injunction proceedings made in anticipation of and in contemplation of judicial review decisions to enforce such injunctions. It followed that the claimant was entitled to the costs protection afforded by the convention.
A & V Building Solution Ltd v J &B Hopkins ltd [2024] 2914 (TCC) – 15 November. In proceedings that were complicated and involved different Courts, and had resulted in a five day trial, the parties asked the judge to asked to carry out a summary assessment. In doing so, the court held that although the Defendant was entitled to set-off costs under Part 36, no increase in the Defendant’s budgeted sum (£78,978.50) to the sum claimed (£153,742.84) would be permitted because no “good reason” under CPR 3.18 could been shown to depart from the last approved budget.
4VVV v Spence [2024] EWHC 3035 (Comm) – 27 November. After giving judgment in favour of the claimants, Foxton J rejected the defendants’ submission that they were not entitled to recover any costs because the claimants were under no liability to pay any costs to their solicitors. The defendants had relied on an alleged contravention of Regulations 13 of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 but s 31(1) applied. The cancellation period ended after 12 months and 14 days, at which point a contract would be binding even if the cancellation information was not provided to the consumer before it was entered into, or indeed if it was never provided.
Grierson v Grierson [2024] EWHC 3048 (Ch) – 27 November. Following the trial about a contested will, Joanne Wicks KC ordered the defendant to pay the claimant’s costs on the indemnity basis in light of his refusal of a Part 36 offer and his litigation conduct. The outcome of the trial was that the claimant had achieved an outcome at least as advantageous as his proposals in the offer, and there was nothing unjust in awarding the Part 36.17(4) benefits, plus an interim payment of 80% of the costs sought.
