Monthly Legal Costs Update – April 2025
Here, in Kain Knight Costs Lawyers’ regular monthly legal costs update, we focus on those cases which we believe are likely to have a practical relevance for its members. We welcome feedback and if there is an area, topic or case you would like us to address, please let us know.
A month with an abundance of cases, so these summaries, of necessity, are relatively brief. We begin with non-party costs orders. In Bailey v GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 186 (KB), there had been an order requiring a defendant to issue a non-party costs order by a deadline. Bourne J held that the order had not carried an implied sanction that would result in the defendant needing relief from sanctions to obtain an extension of time.
However, applying the overriding objective, he refused to grant the defendant a three-year extension of time to issue its application. The defendant had been slow to act and had delayed without explanation.
Next third party costs orders. In the Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse International [2025] EWHC 395 (Comm), the issue for the court to decide was who should pay a third party’s costs where the claim against her had been struck out. The candidates were the claimant who had joined the third party and another defendant who had made claims against her. Robin Knowles J held that as the other defendant had chosen to bring and maintain an additional claim against her, that had caused the third party to incur costs.
The issuing of the additional claim had been from the self-interested vantage point of its defence strategy. It followed that the other defendant would pay the costs of the third party agreed as to 50% plus all the costs of the strike out application with a payment on account of £450,000.
Next, an appeal against the decision of the costs judge. In Mlundra v Secterary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 189, in earlier judicial review proceedings, the claimant had successfully challenged a period of immigration detention, with Laing J ordering the defendant to pay his reasonable costs, to be assessed if not agreed. On hearing the claimant’s application for summary judgment for his costs and the defendant’s application to strike out the assessment for want of a bill, the costs judge had dismissed both and ordered the claimant to pay 80% of the defendant’s costs summarily assessed at £1,1440. The claimant appealed.
Hill J held that the costs judge’s order had been correct. As a matter of form, both applications had been dismissed: neither party had won or lost either of them. As a matter of substance, the defendant had been entirely justified in making the application and it appeared likely that it had been the defendant’s application which had prompted the claimant to serve his bill. Hill J dismissed the appeal with costs summarily assessed in the sum of £4,596.48.
Next, a trio of costs cases involving Family Law. In E (Children: Costs) [2025] EWCA Civ 183, the Court of Appeal considered whether there should be a departure from the general practice that there should be no order as to costs in Children Act proceedings. The court held that the judge below should have acknowledged that the mother’s extreme allegations that the father had sexually abused the older children and had handed them over to a paedophile sex ring, meant that different costs considerations had arisen.
The conclusion that the mother’s litigation conduct had not been reprehensible or unreasonable could not stand. The mother was ordered to pay half the father’s costs of the Children Act proceedings up to 3 July 2024, excluding the costs of the father’s representation at any hearing in respect of which an order had been made that there be no order for costs.
In A Father v A Mother [2025] EWHC 364 (Fam) Ms H Markham KC made a wasted costs order against the Mother’s solicitors for the loss to the father of the costs he had paid to his direct access counsel which were wasted because a hearing could not proceed. The solicitors had failed to take any steps to brief to counsel for the hearing, nor had they prepared and lodged a trial bundle for the hearing.
Finally in Rosemin-Culligan v Culligan [2025] EWFC 26 Macdonald J made a costs order following the court’s financial remedies decision in relation to a divorced couple, and refused the wife’s application to anonymise the substantive and costs judgments. There were matters that had justified any resulting curtailment of the wife’s right and her family’s right to respect for their private and family life under ECHR art.8.
In Orderly Mind Ltd V QUEUE-IT ApS [2025] EWHC 348 (Pat) Mellor J dealt with costs budgeting and significant developments in a “not straightforward” patent case. Due to the adjournment of the trial and several changes in the infringement allegations, there had been significant developments since the original costs budgeting exercise.
Further revisions would be allowed for the statement of case, disclosure, PTR, directions for trial, trial preparation, and trial in the sum of £400.000. In addition, further security for costs was warranted in excess of the £1.3m already ordered.
As always, these are a selection of the principal recent cases which are likely to be of use to practitioners and if any further information is required, please contact either Nick McDonnell or Colin Campbell at Nick.McDonnell@kain-knight.co.uk or Colin.Campbell@kain-knight.co.uk
