Civil Costs Case Law Update – February 2025
Zavorotnii v Malinowski [2025] EWHC 260 (KB) 6 February 2025. HHJ Walden-Smith. Costs budgeting. When the court was approving costs budgets under CPR 3.13 in costs and case management (CCMC) hearings, the usual costs order was “costs in the case”. However, the claimant had been overly ambitious in the sums he sought to have approved, in having achieved just 60% of what he had asked for, which was only 18% above what he had been offered. Whilst there was no reason why a costs order on a CCMC hearing should always be “costs in the case”, the court was not precluded from exercising its discretion under CPR 44.2. On the facts, although it could not be said that the claimant’s budget had been entirely unrealistic, the claimant had, come very close to such a finding, so there was no reason to depart from costs in the case.
Lewis v Francis [2025] EWHC 238 (Admin) 6 February. On appeal by way of case stated, the appellant had secured the overturning of an order made in Magistrates’ Court under section 19(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, that the appellant must pay the respondents’ costs of unsuccessful statutory nuisance proceedings. The matter was criminal, but unless the civil costs regime applied, he would recover no costs, as these could not be paid out of central funds. Kerr J held that the exception in Murphy v. Media Protection Services Ltd [2013] 1 Costs LR 16 applied. It was an exceptional case raising complex issues. The civil costs regime would be applied, and the respondent was ordered to pay 65% of the appellant’s costs summarily assessed in the sum of £5,492.44.
Magomedov v TPG Group Holdings (SBS) LP [2025] EWHC 304 (Comm) Bright J 14 Feb 2025. When dealing with payments on account which also addressed hourly expense rates, but without expressing a figure when deploying the court’s powers under CPR 44.4(3), Bright J reminded the paying claimants that the guideline hourly expense rates were not used in detailed assessment. In any event, the case in question had been of a kind that might be thought to justify rates above even the highest guideline bands. To preserve a healthy margin for error in case the interim payments proved to be excessive, he awarded 70% of indemnity basis costs and 60% of standard basis costs based upon the costs schedules provided. Those meant payments ranging between £211,281 and £ 1,616,315 depending upon the defendant in question.
Orderly Mind Ltd V QUEUE-IT ApS [2025] EWHC 348 (Pat) J 19 February. In a patent case, progress had been delayed by continuing difficulties due to the claimant’s formulation of its case on infringement with each side blaming the other and the original trial date had had to be adjourned because the claimant’s solicitors had come off the court record just before the date set for exchange of expert’s reports. Revisions to each sides’ costs budget were thus required. On the defendant’s case, there had been significant developments in the claim since the current costs budgets had been approved in April 2022, whilst it was the claimant’s submission that the increase should be much smaller than that sought by Defendant. Mellor J held that this was not a straightforward patent case and due to the adjournment of the trial and the changes in the infringement allegations, there had been significant developments since the original costs budget. Further revisions were allowed for the statement of case, disclosure, PTR, directions for trial, trial preparation and trial in the sum of £400.000, together with further security for costs in the sum of £343,000 over and above the £1.3m already ordered.
A Father v A Mother [2025] EWHC 364 (Fam) 20 February. In family proceedings, in which a father had applied for an order that two children be returned to Nigeria. On 4 December 2024, the court had listed the final hearing for three days starting on 16 December. Subsequently it had become clear that the hearing could not proceed because no counsel was able to attend court for the mother. The father applied for his costs wasted by the actions of the mother and/or her legal team. Ms H Markham KC held that S51(6) Supreme Court Act 1981 enabled the court to make a wasted costs order where the improper, unreasonable or negligent conduct had caused wasted costs. On the facts, there had been a direct causal link between the inaction and failure of the mother’s solicitors to ensure that the case had been properly prepared, and an advocate instructed to attend the hearing, and the fact that the hearing could not then proceed. A wasted costs order was made against the solicitors for the loss to the father of the costs he had paid to his direct access counsel, plus his travel costs for coming to the jurisdiction for the aborted hearing.
THE REPUBLIC OF MOZAMBIQUE v CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL [2025] EWHC 395 (Comm) 25 February. Robin Knowles J decided who should pay a third party’s costs where the claim against her had been struck out. The candidates were the claimant who had joined the third party and another defendant who had made claims against her. He held that as the other defendant had had chosen to bring and maintain an additional claim against her, that had caused the third party to incur costs and the issuing of the additional claim had been from the self-interested vantage point of its defence strategy. It followed that just order was that the other defendant would pay the costs of the third party agreed as to 50%, plus all the costs of the strike out application with a payment on account of £450,000.
E (Children: Costs) [2025] EWCA Civ 183 Moylan, Peter Jackson, Andrews LJJ 27 February. In Children Act proceedings, the issue was whether the court below had been correct to refuse a father’s application for the costs of his legal representation at a substantial fact-finding hearing. As a domestic abuse complainant, the mother had been entitled to legal aid. The father, though of modest means, had not, and at the end of the hearing, he had incurred costs of over £75,000 without so far obtaining any order for contact. Whilst there was a general practice of not awarding costs against a party in family proceedings concerning children, the court retained a discretion to do so in exceptional circumstances. The judge below should have acknowledged that the mother’s extreme allegations that the father had sexually abused the older children and had handed them over to a paedophile sex ring, meant that different costs considerations had arisen. The conclusion that the mother’s litigation conduct had not been reprehensible or unreasonable could not stand. The mother was ordered to pay half the father’s costs of the proceedings up to 3 July 2024, excluding the costs of representation at any hearing at which no order for costs had been made.
