Hope Capital Limited & Anor v Alexander Reece Thomson LLP
[2023] EWHC 3157 (KB)
Harrington Scott Limited v Coupe Bradbury Solicitors Limited
12 January 2023
[2023] EWHC 294 (Ch)
High Court
A company sued its solicitors for messing up a case. The judge found the company was dishonest and threw out the case. The solicitors got most of their legal fees back but not all because they'd made some mistakes in how they presented their case.
Key Facts
- •Harrington Scott Limited (Claimant) sued Coupe Bradbury Solicitors Limited (Defendant) for professional negligence (BL-2019-002077).
- •The Defendant applied for summary judgment/strike out under CPR 24.2/3.4 and inherent jurisdiction.
- •The Judge's initial judgment ([2022] EWHC 2275 (Ch)) was handed down on Michaelmas Day 2022.
- •A subsequent hearing on consequential matters (costs, appeals) took place on 12 January 2023.
- •A third-party costs order application against Mr. Trevor Vickers (Claimant's director) was resolved via a consent order.
- •The Claimant's claim was based on three contracts (ERR, SVP, and another).
- •The Judge found the Claimant's claim dishonest and lacked substance.
Legal Principles
Costs generally follow the event.
General Rule of Costs
Indemnity costs may be awarded if a party's conduct is 'out of the norm'.
Sharp v Blank [2020] EWHC 1870 (Ch)
A successful party is not deprived of costs merely for failing on some issues unless there's an objective reason distinguishing those failures.
Sharp v Blank [2020] EWHC 1870 (Ch) and Pigot v The Environment Agency [2020] EWHC 1444 (Ch)
Court considers proportionality of costs in standard basis assessment, but not in indemnity basis.
CPR
Outcomes
Claim dismissed and particulars of claim struck out.
Claim lacked merit and was dishonest.
Defendant awarded costs on the indemnity basis, except for a one-third reduction on costs relating to four specific issues in the initial application.
Defendant largely successful, but claimant's dishonest and unreasonable conduct and the overly broad initial application warranted a partial reduction in costs.
Costs of the adjournment before Deputy Master Arkush not awarded to either party.
Both parties failed to adequately address time estimate and scope of the application.
Interim payment on account set at two-thirds of recoverable costs.
Standard practice, further justified by indemnity costs assessment.
Permission to appeal refused.
No real prospect of success on grounds raised.
The cut-off date for the two-thirds/one-third cost split revised from 29 September 2022 to 5 September 2022.
Further submissions influenced the outcome, acknowledging work undertaken after 5 September.
Similar Cases
Scott Halborg & Anor v Albert Halborg & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1190 (KB)
RESOURCE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS (DERBYSHIRE) LIMITED v DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL & Anor.
[2022] EWHC 1209 (TCC)
Afan Valley Limited v Lupton Fawcett (a firm) & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2498 (KB)
Stubbins Marketing Limited & Ors. v Rayner Essex LLP & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 515 (Ch)