Costs Case Law Update – July 2025
Welcome to the Kain Knight Case Law Update for July 2025, written by Colin Campbell.
July has seen significant costs-related judgments. The cases discussed cover a range of topics, including the enforceability of litigation funding agreements, applications for relief from sanctions regarding costs budgets, the application of Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (QOCS), and the principles governing costs orders against non-parties and in appeals.
Did you know we send Colin’s monthly Case Law Updates straight to your inbox? Be one of the first to read:
Ward v Rai [2025] EWHC 1681 (KB) – 3 July.
In detailed assessment proceedings, the court below had dismissed an application by the claimant to strike out a new schedule of Points of Dispute served two days before the hearing when the defendant had been on notice for 7 months that they had been non-compliant. As a result, the hearing had had to be adjourned into a third day. Hill J held that the overriding objective required that cases be dealt with “fairly”, and any unfairness to the defendant that would be caused by the schedule being struck out, had been entirely of his own making. The appeal was allowed meaning that 134 hours of time claimed on documents could not be challenged by reference to the schedule.
The judgment can be found on Thomson Reuters™ by clicking here.
Magomedov v TPG Group Holdings (SBS) LP [2025] EWHC 1996 (Comm) – 3 July.
In concluded proceedings, costs orders had been made against the claimants who lacked the means to pay them. Their costs had been met by unidentified third-party funders based outside the jurisdiction. It was the defendants’ case that the identities of those third parties be disclosed so that they could consider applying for a non-party costs order under s.51 Senior Courts Act 1981. Bryan J agreed, holding that the test was not whether an application for a non-party costs order was likely to succeed, but whether it was just to make the order.
In the facts, it was : the information sought by the defendants was proportionate, and although confidential, that confidentiality could be maintained via a “Confidentiality Club”. Whilst such a club was the exception rather than the norm to the principle of open justice, it was justified and an order for disclosure was made accordingly.
Right Support Management Limited v The London Borough of Hillingdon [2025] EWHC 1680 (KB).
The claimant had failed to file and serve a costs budget within the time permitted under CPR 3.13, so its costs going forward were limited to applicable court fees under CPR 3.14. Below, the court had refused the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions. On appeal, Ritchie J help that a number of errors were made in the judgment below and that relief should have been granted. However, that did not mean that there should be no sanction. The claimant was ordered to meet its own costs of the application even though it had succeeded and that if the action was won, the claimant would be debarred from recovering 20% of its assessed costs.
The judgment can be found by clicking here.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd v Alex Neill Class Representative Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 841 – 4 July.
In seven linked appeals from the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), the issue was whether litigation funding arrangements (LFAs) were unenforceable damages-based agreements (DBAs), under s.58AA(a) Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. They arose following R (PACCAR Inc) V CAT [2023] Costs LR 1193, in which the Supreme Court held that LFAs under which the payment to the funder is calculated as a percentage of the damages award, were unenforceable insofar as they relate to opt out collective proceedings. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, holding that LFAs entered into by class representatives in such proceedings which provide that the funder’s fee is calculated as a multiple of the funder’s outlay and, expressly or by implication, that the amount of the funder’s recovery is capped at the level of the proceeds recovered, are not unenforceable DBAs within the meaning of s.58AA.
The judgment can be found on Thomson Reuters™ by clicking here.
Wei v Long [2025] EWHC 1799 (KB) – 14 July.
Proceedings brought by four claimants against four defendants for harassment) and involving allegations of engaging in conduct in breach of Articles 8 and 10 ECHR, had been concluded by judgments and an agreed order, save for the consequences of the service of a notice of discontinuance by the claimants on the third defendant (D3) under CPR 38. The Claimants failed in their application that the CPR 38 consequences that the discontinuing party should pay the costs, should not apply. Hill J held that there had been no unreasonable conduct by D3, and D 3 would almost certainly have succeeded in its application that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim against it by virtue of s.10 Defamation Act 2013. The automatic consequences under CPR 38(6) applied.
The judgment can be found on Thomson Reuters™ by clicking here.
ALK v Chief Constable of Surrey [2025] EWHC 1964 (KB) Bourne J – 28 July.
The court below had dismissed the claim for false imprisonment after a five day trial and had permitted the Defendant to enforce 70% of his costs against the Claimants under CPR r44.16(2)(b). The judge’s order reflected his analysis of the extent to which the claim was properly to be regarded as a claim for personal injuries, thereby attracting Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) protection under Part II of CPR 44. Bourne J allowed the appeal on liability, meaning that the appeal against the decision below on QOCS was academic. However, in case a further appeal were to restore the decision below, he set out his conclusions on QOCS, holding that the claim “in the round” had been for personal injuries. Accordingly, the claimants ought to have had QOCS protection in respect of all the defendant’s costs and not just 30%.
The judgment can be found on Thomson Reuters™ by clicking here.
Kington SARL v Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1003 – 29 July.
On 15 April 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against an order below sanctioning a restructuring plan (the “Plan”) in respect of the defendant. As regards the costs, Thames, as respondent to the appeals, contended it was the successful party and entitled to most of its costs. Kington argued that the general rule ought not to apply in the case of an appeal from a decision whether to sanction a scheme of arrangement or restructuring plan, and if not, that they should be regarded as the successful parties: although the appeals were dismissed, the Court in substance agreed with their submissions on the legal principles to be applied. Flaux C held that once the court had exercised its discretion to sanction the plan, the Plan Company needed nothing more from the court in order to implement the plan. At that stage, the question of costs should be approached in the same way as in most appeals, namely that the successful party was generally entitled to a costs award in their favour. On the facts, a discount of 40% was appropriate to take account of the appellant’s success on the legal issues.
The judgment can be found on Thomson Reuters™ by clicking here.
Cohen & Anor v Co-Operative Group Ltd & Ors (Re Costs) [2025] EWHC 1981 (Ch) – 29 July.
Joint liquidators applied unsuccessfully to amend their points of claim and to rely on expert business valuation evidence. In determining costs by summary assessment, the respondents were the successful parties and served an updated statement of costs totalling £181,374.28 comprising £93,548 in solicitors’ time costs, £86,900 in counsel’s fees, and £926.28 in travel expenses for attendance at the hearing. The liquidators’ schedule totalled £435,363.50, of which counsel’s fees comprised £236,225. HHJ Hodge allowed the hourly rates, but disallowed the time spent by two of the four fee earner attending the hearing (the liquidators had six!), meaning that the costs were summarily assessed at £177,488.28.
The judgment can be found by clicking here.
Lime Technology Ltd v Liverpool City Council (Re Costs) [2025] EWHC 2037 (TCC) – 31 July.
Following a challenge to a procurement decision relating to the provision of e-bikes and e-scooters and an application in relation to disclosure, agreement had been reached that the council should pay the costs on the standard basis. Summary assessment was considered and the costs sought were £77,468.25 and £90,372 respectively for both applications. Counsel’s fees at £12,110 and £15,035 respectively were reasonable, but Roger Ter Harr KC held that the rest were not. The partner’s hourly rate claimed was £1,345.50 per hour; the senior associate £895.50 and the associate £463.50. The judge held that whatever rates he might adopt could be treated as binding on the Parties for the remainder of the two linked actions which would be potentially unfair. It followed that the costs would be subject to detailed assessment with a payment on account of £100,000.
The judgment can be found by clicking here.
