Costs Case Law Update – August 2025
Welcome to the Kain Knight Case Law Update for August 2025, written by Colin Campbell.
This month’s case law update covers a wide variety of legal areas, from the enforceability of Conditional Fee Agreements to the jurisdiction of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. We’ll also be looking at a case that provides a useful reminder of the importance of serving a statement of costs in good time, and a Court of Appeal decision that gives guidance on what constitutes “extraordinarily high” costs.
I hope you find it useful.
Did you know we send Colin’s monthly Case Law Updates straight to your inbox? Be one of the first to read:
Saint Benedict’s Land Trust Ltd v London Borough of Camden Council [2025] EWHC 1579 (Ch) -Edwin Johnson J: 24 June 2025.
In detailed assessment proceedings relating to a bill of costs in winding up proceedings, the paying party contended that the retainer of the receiving party, evidenced in two privileged collective conditional fee agreements, might be unenforceable, so that there would be no costs of the receiving party to indemnify. That the contention had raised a “genuine issue” and the receiving party would be put to its election under the Pamplin procedure under CPR 47 PD 13.13, whether to waive privilege in the CCFAs, or to decline disclosure, and prove its liability to pay costs to its own solicitors in reliance upon other evidence.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Special Immigration Appeals Commission [2025] EWHC 2019 (Admin) – 31 July.
Sharpe P, Farbey LJ dealt with judicial review costs. The issue on appeal brought by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, was whether the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (“SIAC”) had jurisdiction to order the Secretary of State (SS) to pay costs. In the SIAC proceedings, the First Interested Party (FGF) had sought a review of the SS’s refusal to grant him naturalisation as a British citizen. The SIAC concluded that it had jurisdiction to award costs to FGF to be assessed by detailed assessment. That decision was set aside.
Whilst the High Court could make a variety of consequential and ancillary orders including costs, there was no basis to equate the broad powers of the High Court with the codified powers of SIAC. Where an application had been withdrawn (as was the case), the jurisdiction of the SIAC was purely administrative and ceased upon withdrawal.
Matiere SAS v ABM Precast Solutions Ltd [2025] EWHC 2030 (TCC) – 31 July.
When dealing with consequentials after trial at which the claim had succeeded and the counterclaim was dismissed, and in deciding whether the Part 36.17(4) benefits should apply, Alexander Nissen KC held that the claimant’s Part 36 offer had been genuine in relation to the claim, but not the counterclaim. It followed that owing to the claimant’s conduct, indemnity basis costs would only be payable in respect of the claim for the period after the Part 36 offer should have been accepted: otherwise, the costs of claim and counterclaim were payable of the standard basis with a payment on account of 90% of budgeted costs
The judgment can be found on Thomson Reuters™ by clicking here.
The Winros Partnership v Global Energy Horizons Corporation [2025] Costs LR 1311 – 1 August: Marcus Smith J.
In detailed assessment proceedings under the Solicitors Act 1974, the Master had ruled on 28 August 2020, that conditional Fee agreements under which Winros had acted for Global, were unenforceable, so the firm could recover none of their fees of about £6m. Trower J reversed the decision ([2022] Costs LR 543) and directed the senior costs Judge (SCJ) to carry out the assessment before whom Global advanced a new argument that no statutory bill had been delivered.
The judge upheld the SCJ’s ruling that it was not an abuse of process to take this point more than three years after the hearing before the Master, but for different reasons, holding that there could see no clearer case of an abuse of process. However, the Master had given directions for the hearing of two preliminary issues before there had been any pleadings. That had been a major procedural error on the part of the court acting of its own motion. No criticism could be levelled at Global for not taking the point earlier. The abuse point failed, leaving a further appeal from another ruling by the SCJ that the fees should be assessed at nil, to be heard in November.
The judgment can be found by clicking here.
Smith v Lord Chancellor [2025] Costs LR 1435 – 1 August: Sir Andrew McFarlane.
The respondent mother was legally aided in proceedings under the Children Act 1989 concerning her intention to re-locate her child to China. The applicant father applied for a non-party costs order (NCO) against the Lord Chancellor to recompense him for his substantial outlay in costs, but his application failed. Where a non-legally-aided party is successful in a case against a legally-aided party, the Family Court’s general jurisdiction, under the Senior Courts Act 1981 Pt II s.51(1)(ba), is limited by the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013 Pt 3 reg.9(2). No NCO could be made.
The judgment can be found on Thomson Reuters™ by clicking here.
McGivern v MBR Acres Ltd & Ors [2025] Costs LR 1329 – 4 August: Sweeting J.
In a dismissed contempt application brought by MBR against Ms McGivern (Ms M) for alleged breaches of an injunction, Ms M had the benefit of a criminal legal aid certificate under section 16 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“LASPO”), which, while largely civil in nature, were classified as “criminal proceedings” for the purposes of legal aid under LASPO. In her bill, Ms M claimed £400 per hour for her solicitor at his private client rate, but MBR would only pay the significantly lower legal aid rate. That was correct.
In civil proceedings, Regulation 21 Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013 and s.28(2) of LASPO explicitly overrode the indemnity principle in civil legal aid, and there was no equivalent disapplication in criminal legal aid. Any perceived “absurdity” in a successful legally aided party being unable to recover full between-the-parties’ costs, was a matter for the legislature, not for the courts.
The judgment can be found by clicking here.
Helliwell v Entwistle (Costs) [2025] Costs LR 1413 – 7 August: Moylan, Snowden, King LJJ.
The parties had made a pre-nuptial agreement in which, in the event of a divorce, neither would make any claim against the other. However, the wife had deliberately and fraudulently failed to disclose 73% of her assets. That was conduct out of the norm and justified an indemnity basis costs order against her where the husband had succeeded in his appeal against a financial remedies order that had upheld the pre-nuptial agreement.
The judgment can be found on Thomson Reuters™ by clicking here.
Turner v Coupland Cavendish Limited [2025] Costs LR 1401 – 7 August: Sweeting J.
Following the judgment handed down on 26 June 2025 [see [2025] Costs LR 955), the parties could not agree the terms of an order. The court was therefore asked to determine issues in relation to a proposed stay, and the costs of both the appeal and the application below. The claimant had been the successful party on the appeal and was entitled to his costs. Against a schedule of £16,915.36, counsel’s brief fee at £7,000 (the same as the defendant’s counsel) was reasonable but profit costs were not: the costs were summarily assessed at £14,057.76 (inclusive of VAT) plus £2,422.08 for costs incurred after the appeal. No order as to the costs below.
The claimant had succeeded on his Part 18 request but failed on his disclosure application, and his statement of costs for the hearing below had not been served prior to that hearing, a clear contravention of CPR 44 PD.9.5(4), an unexplained breach of mandatory rules.
Saipem SpA v Petrofac Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1106 -14 August: Zacaroli, Showden LJJ, Sir Christopher Floyd.
Following an appeal about Company Restructuring Plans, the court directed the service and filing of a schedule of costs, providing sufficient detail for it to determine a payment on account under CPR 44.2(8). The schedule totalled £6,405,924 with up to £1,096 per hour for the solicitors, the leader’s brief fee £125,000, the junior’s £80,000, and his refreshers £7,500.
The court held that the costs were extraordinarily high: no justification had been provided which focussed on the specific complexity or novelty of the issues raised by the Plans, any necessity for matters to be dealt with in a particularly expedited timescale, or identifying any particularly difficult international complications encountered by the solicitors that were not routine for a plan of the type under consideration. That also applied so far as the fees of counsel and financial experts were concerned. These were manifest deficiencies: the court ordered a payment of £2m.
The judgment can be found on Thomson Reuters™ by clicking here.
