Costs Case Law Update – June 2025
Welcome to the Kain Knight Case Law Update for June 2025, written by Colin Campbell.
This month has delivered a series of significant judgments, from crucial decisions on non-party costs orders and detailed assessment procedures to rulings on litigation capacity and the enforceability of QOCS, June 2025 has provided valuable clarity and important reminders for legal practitioners.
Did you know we send Colin’s monthly Case Law Updates straight to your inbox? Be one of the first to read:
Aina Khan Law Ltd v The Legal Ombudsman [LEO][2025] EWHC 1319 (Admin) -29 May.
The claimant law firm applied for judicial review of a LEO’s decision that it should repay its client £51,192, representing £35,500 for failing to update her on the escalating costs of her divorce proceedings, and £15,692 for having failed to assess her litigation capacity adequately. David Pievsky KC upheld the LEO’s finding about the costs update, which had amounted to poor service, but he quashed the decision about the client’s capacity. That had been irrational because it conflated mental illness with a lack of capacity: the fact that she had been referred to a psychiatrist did not in itself indicate capacity issues. The solicitors were awarded 40% of their costs of the judicial review.
Tescher v Direct Accident Management Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 733 – 13 June.
The issue was to decide that where a credit hire case failed (viz for vehicle hire whilst the claimant’s vehicle was under repair), when and in what circumstances should the non-party credit hire company (CHC) be made liable for the defendant’s costs? In two conjoined appeals, the claimants had lost their personal injury actions which included large claims for credit hire, but the effect of the QOCS scheme meant that costs orders made against them could not be enforced.
Per Birss LJ: as a matter of reality – practical and economic – the CHC was the real beneficiary of the litigation for the damages in respect of charges for credit hire. Non-party costs orders were made against the CHCs for the costs ordered to be paid by the claimants, who would pay nothing personally due to their QOCS protection.
Christine Riefa Class Representative Limited [“PCR”] – v – Apple Inc. and Amazon.com Inc [2025] CAT 34 – 13 June- Bacon J.
The Tribunal refused the application of the PCR for a collective proceedings order and awarded Apple and Amazon their costs. Pending assessment, in costs schedules to support payments on account, Amazon claimed £3,368,812.94 (solicitors £2,472,337.91, counsel £302,758.75, experts £629,784.36.) Apple claimed. £2,697,523.58 (solicitors £1,798,418.69, counsel £586,592.94, experts £311,071.96).
The hourly rates for Amazon’s solicitors were “very high” with the Grade A fee at £1,254.78 (Guideline Hourly Rates £512–£566). By contrast, those of Apple were below the GHR except for the A at £803. A 30% uplift was appropriate. For the experts, for the purpose of the interim payments, £250,000 per party was allowed. No reductions were made for counsel. Overall 65% was ordered – £1,695,797.16 for Apple and £1,405,834.41 for Amazon.
Samrai v Kalia [2025] EWHC 1449 (KB) -13 June.
Martin Spencer J disapplied the QOCS rules against some claimants because their failed claims against a priest had not been “in the round” for personal injury (PI). The PI claim was an important aspect, but could be distinguished, and those for harassment, unpaid services, repayment of monies paid pursuant to loans for the purchase of cars, travel expenses, monetary donations to a Hindu temple and to third parties for services to participate in temple events, all said to result from the Defendant’s undue influence, could be separated out. They came within the exception provided by rule 44.16(2)(b) and 40% of the claimant’s costs estimated at £2m could be enforced, with interim payments of £100,000 per claimant, not to be enforced until an application for wasted costs against the claimants’ former legal representatives had been determined.
The judgment can be found by clicking here.
The New Lottery Company v Gambling Commission [2025] EWHC 1522 (TCC) Joanna Smith J – 16 June.
An interested party to the litigation could not obtain an order for security for costs under CPR 25. The rule permitted a party to the action to do so, but there was no route for a non-party via CPR 3.1(2))p) on the basis that the court could “take any other step… for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective”. That would have the effect of circumventing the existing regime in CPR 25, so the application was refused.
Elphicke v Times Media Limited [2025] EWHC 1554 (KB) – 19 June.
Hill J refused to grant permission to appeal against five decisions taken by Master McCloud on detailed assessment. The Master had not exceeded the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement was possible and the court would not interfere with the decisions she had made.
The judgment can be found by clicking here.
Illiquidx Ltd v Altana Wealth Ltd [2025] EWHC 1566 (KB) – 23 June.
Following a liability trial, Rajah J dealt with “consequentials”. Whilst it was common ground that the claimant was the overall winner, costs adjustments were required to reflect the claimant’s loss in a copyright and joint liability claim. The costs were not reserved to await to the “event” in the sense of a final resolution of the proceedings. However, as a reflection of the court’s disapproval of the way the claim had been prosecuted (which did not comply with the overriding objective, as well as the extra costs likely to have been caused by that approach), Rajah J limited the recoverable costs to 50%, subject to detailed assessment.
The judgment can be found by clicking here.
Century Property (Leeds) Ltd v Eville & Jones (Group) [2025] EWHC 1348 (KB) – 24 June.
When dealing with “consequentials”, Simon Kinnear KC refused to stay a costs order made against a litigant-in-person pending appeal, holding that there was no risk of injustice to one or both parties if he granted or refused the stay. He then summarily assessed the costs, that being a cost-effective way to decide costs without the time and expense of detailed assessment.
Turner and Coupland Cavendish Ltd [2025] EWHC 1605 (KB) – 26 June.
In detailed assessment proceedings under 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 and CPR 67, the issue was whether an order should be made for the defendant solicitors to comply with a Part 18 request. The claimant contended that there might be undisclosed financial benefits which would constitute client money and should have been credited to the cash account. That included (1) a Gibraltar based entity to which a payment had been made out of his compensation, (2) possible commission paid for an After-the-Event insurance policy. Sweeting J held that the requests should be answered. For commissions, the only threshold condition was that the information must relate to a matter in dispute in the proceedings. There was no requirement for a witness statement or a “positive case” to be established by the party seeking the information.
The judgment can be found by clicking here.
Corben Mews Ltd & Anor v 381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Ltd & Ors (Re Costs) [2025] EWHC 1581 (TCC), Jefford J – 26 June.
In proceedings in which a freezing injunction had been granted, the court dealt with the costs by summary assessment on the standard basis on the papers. Taking into account the parties’ respective conduct and the measure of success on the issues, the fair order was that the respondents should pay 50% of the applicants’ cost. Two costs schedules were produced, the first for £24,058 +VAT and the second for £42,338 + VAT.
Jefford J held that it was wholly unsatisfactory to say after the event, that costs had been mistakenly left out and that they would have been the subject of oral submissions (of which no notice had been given) had the assessment been carried out at the end of the hearing. The unsatisfactory position was dealt with by discounting the amounts that appeared to have been left out. The costs were summarily assessed at £14,500.
The judgment can be found by clicking here.
