Scenic International Group Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Richard Adenaike & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1178 (Ch)
Jerry Isah, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
14 March 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 268
Court of Appeal
Imagine a judge decides who gets to pay the legal bills after a case. Normally, that same judge figures out the exact amount. This case was about whether a different judge could do it. The higher court said no, only the original judge can decide the final amount of legal costs.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning whether a judge can order costs summary assessment by a different judge.
- •Appellant, Mr. Isah, successfully claimed damages for unlawful detention.
- •Master Brown assessed Mr. Isah's costs at £25,338.75.
- •Linden J ordered summary assessment of costs by a Master in the Senior Courts Costs Office.
- •Snowden LJ granted permission to appeal this order.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'summary assessment' in CPR r 44.1(1): assessment by the judge who heard the case.
CPR r 44.1(1)
CPR r 44.6(1): Court may make a summary assessment or order detailed assessment by a costs officer.
CPR r 44.6(1)
Practice Direction 44: Guidance on summary assessment, indicating that it should generally be done by the same judge. If not possible on the same day, a further hearing before the same judge may be directed.
Practice Direction 44
Overriding objective (CPR r 1.1) emphasizes proportionality and cost-effectiveness, but cannot override explicit rules.
CPR r 1.1, 1.2, 3.1(2)(m)
Case law interpretation of CPR and Practice Directions: Practice Directions are subordinate to rules and cannot override them; 'may' in PD44 9.7 refers to the decision to give directions, not to who conducts the assessment; Transformers and Rectifiers Ltd v Needs Ltd [2015] EWHC 1687 (TCC) distinguished.
Leigh v Michelin Tyres plc [2004] 1 WLR 846, Mahmood & Anr v Penrose & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 457, Transformers and Rectifiers Ltd v Needs Ltd [2015] EWHC 1687 (TCC)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The court held that only the judge who heard the case can conduct a summary assessment of costs, as per the definition in CPR r 44.1(1) and the structure of CPR r 44.6(1). The 'may' in Practice Direction 44 does not grant discretion to assign the assessment to a different judge.
Summary assessment remitted to the original judge.
A summary assessment is appropriate given the hearing lasted less than a day, and a detailed assessment would be disproportionate. This is despite the fact that the issue wasn't raised before Linden J initially.
No order as to costs on appeal (except for one specific application).
The point about summary assessment was not raised before Linden J, and the appeal's benefit to Mr. Isah is unclear, given excessive costs already incurred.