Costs Case Law Update – December 2025
Welcome to the Kain Knight Case Law Update for December 2025, written by Colin Campbell.
This month’s review features significant rulings on costs across various domains, covering everything from the mechanics of joint liability in multi-party actions to the recoverability of solicitor fees following the termination of a retainer.
Did you know we send Colin’s Monthly Case Law Updates straight to your inbox? Be one of the first to read:
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2025] EWHC 3207 (KB) Nicklin J, Master Cook – 9 Dec 2025
The court decided the claimants’ costs liabilities should they lose the action and be ordered to pay the defendant’s costs. Each claimant would be severally liable for their own costs specific to their individual claims, but jointly and severally liable for all costs common to the claims. It followed that the claimants’ After-the-Event insurance might need to be adjusted to reflect the liability for common costs, should any of the other claimants fail to pay their share. Variations to the costs budgets under CPR 3.15A were also dealt with where the parties had satisfied the court that there had been significant developments in the litigation.
The judgment can be found on Thomson Reuters™ by clicking here.
Thomas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3274 – HHJ Freedman – 10 December
The court dealt with the costs consequences of offers under CPR 36. The claimant had made four Part 36 offers, the last for £15,000 in a claim for unlawful detention. A Consent Order had been made for payment of £16,000 after the claimant had succeeded at the liability trial, but before the quantum trial. The principal issue was whether the costs consequences set out in CPR 36.17(4) were engaged.
The Defendant contended that there must be a judgment before the rule could come into into play. The court held that the mere fact that the word “judgment” did not appear in the Consent Order was of no consequence when considering its effect. An Order made by the Court following a Trial could have been drafted in precisely the same terms as the Consent Order. It followed that the claimant was entitled to the benefits under CPR 36.17(4) including an additional sum of 10% of damages.
The judgment can be found by clicking here.
R on the application of: Public and Commercial Services Union v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1644 – 16 December
Bean, Peter Jackson and Elisabeth Laing LJJ dismissed an appeal by the claimant (PCSU) against the order below that there be “no order as to costs” following service by PSCU of notice of discontinuance under CPR 38.
The claim had sought judicial review of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Border Security) Regulations 2023 on ECHR art.11 grounds. Discontinuance followeda change of government which had repealed the legislation. PCSU argued that it should be awarded its costs in full, having been “wholly successful” in obtaining the repeal.
However, where a claim had become academic for reasons not attributable to the issue of proceedings, there was no prima facie entitlement to costs, unless it could be shown without the court having to hear detailed argument, that the claimant would have been likely to succeed at a trial. Whilst the judge’s reasons for making no order for costs (namely that the claim became academic for political reasons after a change of government and not because of the claim), were expressed with telegraphic brevity, the order had not been made as a result of an error of principle or of law.
Therefore, the appeal failed.
The judgment can be found by clicking here.
Winros Partnership v Global Energy Horizons Corporation [2025] EWHC 3362 – 19 December
The court determined on appeal issues arising on assessment under s.70 Solicitors Act 1974. The claimant solicitors had billed the defendant (its former client) over £6m for work done under various Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) between 2012 and 2016. Below, the judge had assessed the bills at nil.
That decision had been correct.
Following the breakdown of their relationship, Winros had terminated the retainer before any ‘win’ occurred under the CFAs. The issue was whether upon termination of a CFA by acceptance of a repudiatory breach, the solicitor was entitled to payment for work done up to the date of termination, where no success fee had been achieved.
Marcus Smith J held that such termination was at common law, rather than under Winros’ contractual termination powers under the CFA and that no common law restitutionary claim was possible given the existence of a contractual power to terminate for cause, which Winros had deliberately chosen not to exercise. There was no room for a claim for unjust enrichment because the retainer already articulated what was to happen in such a case.
The appeal to assess the costs at nil was dismissed.
The judgment can be found on Thomson Reuters™ by clicking here.
