Civil Costs Case Law Update- June 2024
Transomas Ltd v Kheri Trading Ltd [2024] EWHC 1349 (Ch) Joanna Smith J 20 May 2024. The judge made a non-party costs order against the sole director of the two claimant companies, to prevent her from hiding behind a corporate identity and thus engaging in what would otherwise have been, for her, risk-free litigation. Her conduct over the course of the litigation justified the order since she had repeatedly made very serious and unsubstantiated allegations which the court had found to be completely misconceived.
DH v RH [2024] EWFC 114 -24 May 2024- MacDonald J. Although under FPR r.28.3(5), the court in family proceedings will not ordinarily make an order requiring one party to pay the costs of another party, the wife had been guilty of persistent and egregious conduct (extra costs in an unsuccessful attempt to find hidden assets). That justified a departure from the general practice and the wife was ordered to pay over £250,000 in costs out of her matrimonial settlement.
Exporien Mining Pvt Ltd Co v Aggreko International Projects Ltd [2024] EWHC 1463 (Comm) Phillip Marshall KC 13 Jun 2024. On an application for an extension of time for it to provide security for costs as previously ordered, and for a variation of the order in terms of the type of security to be provided, the court under CPR 3.1(7) could entertain a claimant’s application to vary the form of security it had been ordered to provide, despite a lack of material change in circumstances since the order was made. However, the After-the-Event insurance policy offered as security required dealing with within 21 days in order to address points of objection raised by the defendant which the judge had accepted.
Elbanna v Clark [2024] EWHC 1471 (KB) Sweeting J 14 June 2024. An offer to settle on terms that “The Claimant will settle the issue of liability in this claim on the basis that the Defendant will accept 75% of the Claimant’s claim for damages to be assessed” was not an offer effective so as to give rise to the Part 36 consequences which would otherwise follow from the claimant’s success at the trial. The wording had not made reference expressly to breach of duty or to a causation issue which was initially to be determined at a preliminary issue hearing. However, the offer might have those consequences at a later stage when all “liability” issues had been determined, but that would be a matter for further argument if it arose.
Invenia Technical Computing Corp v Hudson [2024] EWHC 1481 (KB) 14 June. Julian Knowles J refused to order a payment on account in favour of the claimant under CPR 44.2(8) in respect of costs he had been awarded regarding a variation of the terms of an electronic imaging order (EIO) made against him. The claim for £314,600 was unlikely to bear any reasonable relationship to the sum which he would be likely to recover on a detailed assessment, either in terms of the hours spent (393), or the claimed hourly rate of £800, in the absence of any documentation, such as a contract or consultancy agreement, or his claim for loss of work.
Holcroft v Thorneycroft Solicitors Ltd [2024] EWHC 1473 (KB) 17 June. Eyre J refused to make an order for detailed assessment under s.70(1) Solicitors Act 1974 of a bill rendered to their former client for work on a personal injury claim. Before the issue of proceedings, the client had authorised the firm to accept a settlement offer of £24,200 including costs on the terms set out in a letter of 4 August 2020 which had identified the profit costs and disbursements to be deducted from the settlement sum. The client had written “I have signed and accepted it on the attachment”. That had amounted to a binding agreement not only that the offer would be accepted, but also as to the division of the offer amount between the parties and as to the precise amount recoverable by the solicitor for its costs and disbursements. It followed that the client could not seek to use the section 70 procedure to reopen that agreement.
The Kain Knight monthly case law updates are written by costs expert, Colin Campbell. If you would like to be added to our costs law update mailing list then please sign up via the form on the home page.
