Civil Costs Case Law – April 2024
South Tees Development Corp v PD Teesport Ltd [2024] EWHC 842 (Ch) 27 March 2024. Rajah J dealt with the incidence of costs following a 6 week trial. The defendant was the successful party having established a right to emergency access and egress, which the claimants and third parties thought carried a ransom value. However it was also relevant to consider the extent to which it was reasonable for the successful party to take a failed point, involving the extra costs associated with it. At the outset of the trial, the defendant had abandoned claims to rights of way over many other routes, in respect of which the claimant and the third party had incurred costs, mainly expert evidence and trial preparation. Those abandoned claims should have been investigated and abandoned a long time ago: costs reduced by 20% to reflect that, subject to conduct, namely that the claimant and third party had rejected out of hand an offer made two weeks before trial before trial. It would pay 100% of the costs from the date of that rejection.
Lane v Lane [2024] EWHC 752 (Ch) Jonathan Hilliard KC 28 March. Jonathan Hilliard decided the incidence of costs where he had held that during the administration of an estate involving the will of a deceased, that a testamentary gift had adeemed and that the defendant executrix should be replaced, contrary to her forceful submissions. The costs relating to the ademption were payable out of the estate since it had been a matter which had arisen in its administration and it had been reasonable and necessary for the defendant to have taken the other side of the argument. However, the defendant would pay the removal costs personally, because an executor who had been removed on grounds of their conduct and had unsuccessfully resisted the claim until judgment, would normally personally bear their own and the claimant’s costs because they had not properly incurred those costs. Any sums not paid by the executrix should be deducted from her share, and, if exhausted, deducted as a proper expense of the estate.
Pinewood Technologies Asia Pacific Ltd v Pinewood Technologies Plc [2024] EWHC 802 (TCC) Roger Ter Haar KC 12 April. The defendant had obtained an unless order in relation to certain payments which the claimant should have made, but extensions of time were granted to make them. The level of the claimant’s success meant that it would pay 90% of the costs of the applications. However, a summary assessment of the Defendant’s costs schedule was inappropriate because the costs sought at £30,981 were surprising and the court felt unable to use it as a basis for summary assessment. An interim payment would be ordered of £45,000 being 90% of £50,000 and a detailed assessment.
Lorimer-Wing v Hashmi [2024] EWHC 931 (Ch) Mr Justice Edwin Johnson 24 April. The claimant, who was a shareholder and director in a company, had established at a liability trial that there had been unfair prejudice in the management of that company. At a consequentials hearing, the judge below had ordered the defendant to pay his costs, but with the detailed assessment not to commence until either the court had determined the value of the claimant’s shares or an agreement had been reached as to their value. That order had been correct. There was no rule of law that the existence of an admissible offer to settle should cause the court to reserve the costs until the quantum trial, when it could be seen whether the recovery exceeded what was offered. The judge’s decision meant that the defendant should not have to pay the costs until the conclusion of the quantum trial, either by way of interim payment or following a detailed assessment. It was not possible to see why, in the exercise of his discretion, the Judge had not been entitled to take that particular course, so the appeal was dismissed.
