Monthly Legal Costs Update – November 2025
Here, in Kain Knight Costs Lawyers’ regular monthly legal costs update November 2025, we focus on those cases which we believe are likely to have a practical relevance for its members. We welcome feedback and if there is an area, topic or case you would like us to address, please let us know. This November 2025 update has been written by Nick McDonnell and Colin Campbell.
With the High Court sitting again following the end of the Long Vacation, there are a good number of cases this month. Without doubt the most important, and the judgment that has generated thousands of legal inches in the legal press, is Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), it also means that due to copy space, the remaining summaries are necessarily short.
Click on a topic below to jump straight to the summary.
- Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP: In a landmark decision, the High Court ruled that it is a criminal offence for non-qualified staff to conduct litigation even under supervision, as this prohibited by the Legal Services Act 2007.
- AstraZeneca v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe: The court held that reserved costs from interim applications should ordinarily follow the ultimate outcome of the proceedings once the successful party is known.
- Clarke v Guardian News & Media Ltd: A newspaper was awarded indemnity costs in a failed defamation action because the claimant had made dishonest statements, with the court confirming that ability to pay is a matter for enforcement, not the basis of assessment.
- Pharos Offshore Group Ltd v Keynvor Morlift Ltd: A claimant who obtained a judgment more advantageous than its Part 36 offer was entitled to the full benefits under CPR 36.17(4), including enhanced interest.
- Learning Curve (NE) Group v Lewis: After beating its Part 36 offer, the claimant was awarded the associated benefits and, unusually, a payment on account for 100% of its budgeted costs.
- Potanina v Potanin: The Court of Appeal refused to alter its costs order, finding the wife to be the overall successfully party, despite the husband’s later success in the Supreme Court on different legal grounds.
- Fernandez v Fernandez: An executor who failed to respond to 26 suggested dates for mediation was ordered to pay costs on the indemnity basis.
- Ellis v Ellis & Ors: A delay in agreeing to mediate was found to be reasonable due to another party’s refusal to provide disclosure, meaning no departure was made from the usual standard basis costs order.
- Aercap Ireland v AIG Europe SA: This judgment provides an essential analysis of the principles for apportioning costs and making Sanderson orders where a claimant succeeds against some defendants but not others.
- R. (on the application of Bates) v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court: The Divisional Court confirmed the High Court has jurisdiction to order an interested party to pay costs in a judicial review concerning a criminal matter, overturning previous authority suggesting this required exceptional circumstances.
- Qatar Investment and Projects Development Holding Co v Phoenix Ancient Art SA: Security for costs was granted for an appeal due to a risk of asset dissipation, but the amount was significantly reduced from £225,000 to £70,000 as the sum sought was deemed disproportionate.
In Mazur, and in a sentence, Sheldon J considered who is authorised to conduct litigation in the civil courts in England and Wales, and the extent to which unqualified staff (those not being a solicitor, or barrister or “exempt person”) are permitted to do so. His decision was that there is a distinction to be drawn between (a) supporting and assisting an authorised person in conducting litigation and (b) conducting litigation under the supervision of an authorised person.
Activities falling within (a) are permitted, but those falling within (b) are prohibited by the statutory regime under the Legal Services Act 2007: moreover, under s14, a criminal offence is committed under (b) even if the work is being supervised. It followed that mere employment by a person who is authorised to conduct litigation, is not sufficient for an employee to conduct litigation themselves, even under supervision.
In Mazur, that meant that the Head of litigation who did not have a practising certificate at the solicitors who had been instructed to recover a debt from Mrs Mazur, had not been permitted to conduct the litigation (although there was no finding whether he was, in fact conducting litigation), contrary to the decision below. Accordingly, the court had been wrong to order Mrs Mazur to pay the costs of lifting a stay of proceedings, and that decision was quashed.
However, it is Sheldon J’s ruling that non-qualifieds having conduct of litigation under the supervision of qualifieds, is impermissible, which has driven the profession into turmoil. This is because for many years firms have been handling cases in exactly the way which Sheldon J has held to be a criminal offence under the LSA: the delegating of cases to staff such as very experienced legal executives and the like even under full supervision.
Watch this space!
Back to less controversial stuff: in AstraZeneca v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe [2025] EWHC 2406 (Pat) HHJ Hacon dealt with “consequentials” in five combined proceedings involving patents. They included the costs of interim injunctions and whether costs reserved on such interim applications should follow the ultimate outcome of the proceedings.
Having given judgment in favour of the manufacturers with costs of the proceedings to be assessed by detailed assessment, that left four interim reserved costs orders and a consent order. The judge held that retrospective identification of the successful and unsuccessful parties once the trial outcome was known, was permissible and that reserved costs should ordinarily follow that event. Following decisions on each, interim payments on account of costs were ordered as to 65% of the sums sought in favour of the manufacturers.
Next more consequentials: Clarke v Guardian News & Media Ltd [2025] EWHC 2575 (KB). In a failed defamation action, the newspaper was awarded its costs of the action, including any reserved costs, Steyn J noting that under CPR 44 PD 4.2, they would thus be “costs in the case”. They were ordered on the indemnity basis because a party’s means was not a matter that fell for consideration when determining the basis for assessment, but rather, a party’s ability to pay became relevant at the stage of enforcement.
The pleaded case and his evidence at trial on the defence of truth contained many statements that were untrue and dishonest. In addition, he had maintained and very publicly aired wholly unfounded allegations of dishonesty against three professional journalists. As to a payment on account, the newspaper’s costs were £6m and 50% of that was sought and allowed, on the basis that this was substantially lower than the likely level of recovery on detailed assessment and allowed for a suitably wide margin of error.
Still with consequentials, in Pharos Offshore Group Ltd v Keynvor Morlift Ltd [2025] EWHC 2496 (TCC) Constable J held that the claimant was entitled to the benefits of CPR 36.17(4). A Part 36 offer of £550,000 (inclusive of VAT and interest) was more advantageous than the judgment obtained. Interest at 10% above base rate applied to the principal sum (including VAT) from the expiry of the relevant period to judgment.
Interest on costs was fixed at 5% above base rate, reflecting the timing of the offer and the reasonableness of the defendant’s decision to proceed to trial. Costs without any percentage reduction were allowed because although the defendant achieved some reduction in the claim and limited success on its counterclaim, those matters did not justify any departure from the general rule that costs follow the event.
Potanina v Potanin [2025] EWCA Civ 1233 concerns family law costs. The husband had succeeded in the Supreme Court but on different grounds to those argued below. The Court of Appeal refused to revisit its own order in the light of that success, holding that overall the wife had been the successful. Moreover there was to be no set-off of costs and the husband was ordered to pay £350,000 on account within 60 days, being 70% of the amount sought in the wife’s costs schedule.
Next two more consequentials cases, but as they do not create any new law, we mention these to draw attention to two different approaches to mediation (both were long and discursive judgments and space does not permit any further analysis).
In Fernandez v Fernandez [2025] EWHC 2530 (Ch), the judge dismissed an appeal against an order removing the appellant as executor to his parents’ estate and ordered him to pay the costs on the indemnity basis owing his failure to respond to 26 suggested dates for a mediation.
By contrast, in Ellis v Ellis & Ors [2025] EWHC 2609 (Ch), HHJ Berkley held that delay in agreeing to mediate had to be seen in the light of another party’s refusal to offer disclosure, meaning that a CCMC was essential before any mediation could proceed. It followed that no departure was made from the usual standard basis costs order.
Still with consequentials, in Learning Curve (NE) Group v Lewis [2025] EWHC 2491 (Comm), there had been judgment for the claimant in respect of the defendant’s breach of warranty for £5,211,625 which had been reduced by a prior payment of £783,325 resulting in a net judgment of £4,428,300 against a Part 36 offer of £5,211,625. That offer was valid and the CPR 36.17(4) benefits were all payable, in addition to which, HHJ Russen ordered a payment on account of 100% of the budgeted costs (£1,257,382) which must be a first!
Finally with consequentials, to be recommended as essential reading is the costs judgment about the aircraft stranded in Moscow following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – Aercap Ireland v AIG Europe SA [2025] EWHC 2529.
Aercap recovered $1 billion but just 65% of its costs. Having dealt with interest, Butcher J addressed the division of costs in circumstances where AEG had brought alternative claims against different insurers and succeeded against some but not others, and the extent to which and the principles to apply where the court makes a Sanderson order, that an unsuccessful defendant is ordered to pay a successful defendant’s costs.
Next a very important decision on criminal procedure.
In R. (on the application of Bates) v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court [2025] EWHC 2532 (Admin), the Divisional Court held that the High Court had jurisdiction under the s.51 Senior Courts Act 1981 to order that an interested party should pay the successful claimant’s costs in judicial review proceedings, where the judicial review concerned a criminal matter. Here that criminal matter had been a summons based on allegations of fraud made by a shareholder and director of a company that had been vexatious and an abuse of process.
To the extent that Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd [20131 Costs LR 16 had held that the High Court should only make costs orders under s.51 in criminal cases in exceptional cases, it had been wrongly decided. It followed that the interested party would pay the costs claimed at £235,922.11 subject to detailed assessment.
Finally, security for costs under CPR r.25.29(1).
In Qatar Investment and Projects Development Holding Co v Phoenix Ancient Art SA [2025] EWCA Civ 1300, the Court of Appeal granted security in favour of the claimants as respondents to the appeal where it was a factor relevant to the exercise of discretion that there was a risk of the first to third defendants dissipating their assets to avoid paying a judgment against them. However, it was not all good news for the claimants: their costs were £225,000 which the court considered to be disproportionality high for a one day appeal and allowed “just” £70,000 as security!
As always, these are a selection of the principal recent cases which are likely to be of use to practitioners and if any further information is required, please contact either Nick McDonnell or Colin Campbell at Nick.McDonnell@kain-knight.co.uk or Colin.Campbell@kain-knight.co.uk
