CHIA-HSING WANG v FLOREAT PRIVATE LIMITED
[2023] EWHC 1123 (Comm)
Geoffrey William Guy & Ors v Nihal Mohammed Brake & Ors (moratorium cancellation costs)
14 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3179 (Ch)
High Court
A court case about who should pay legal fees ended with nobody paying because the main issue of the case (stopping someone from being protected from debt collectors due to mental health issues) became irrelevant when the protection ended. The judge decided to avoid a lengthy and costly side-battle over who was 'right' in the main case, since that would cost too much time and money.
Key Facts
- •Applicants sought to cancel a mental health crisis moratorium for the First Respondent under the Debt Respite Scheme Regulations 2020.
- •The moratorium ended on 22 July 2023 due to the First Respondent no longer meeting the criteria.
- •The application's progress was delayed, leading to a consideration of outstanding issues, primarily costs.
- •Questions arose about the proper service of the application on the Third Respondent (NHS Trust).
- •Applicants sought costs from Respondents, arguing the First Respondent never met the moratorium criteria.
- •Respondents argued against costs orders, citing the moratorium's end and lack of a proper basis for deciding success.
Legal Principles
The court has discretion to make a costs order, but it must have a proper basis of agreed or determined facts to do so.
CPR 44.3(1)(a), 44.3(2), BCT Software Solutions Ltd v C Brewer & Sons Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 939
The court should be slow to determine disputed facts solely for making a costs order, particularly when no judgment has been reached on the substantive issues.
BCT Software Solutions Ltd v C Brewer & Sons Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 939
Even without a judgment on substantive issues, a judge can rule on costs using a more summary procedure; however, the judge is not obligated to determine disputed facts solely for costs.
Coyne v DRC Distribution Ltd [2008] BCC 612, CA; Powles v Reeves [2016] EWCA Civ 1375
Outcomes
No order as to costs was made.
The court lacked a proper basis to determine who was the successful party. Resolving the factual disputes necessary to award costs would essentially retry the substantive application, which is inefficient given the moratorium's termination. The court considered the extensive pre-existing litigation between the parties and determined that further investment of resources was not justified.
Similar Cases
Dr Geoffrey William Guy & Ors v Nihal Mohammed Brake & Ors (Moratorium cancellation directions)
[2023] EWHC 1560 (Ch)
North Central London Integrated Care Board v AA & Ors (Costs)
[2024] EWCOP 44 (T3)
CVN, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon
[2023] EWHC 865 (Admin)
John Riordan & Ors v Moon Beever Solicitors
[2023] EWHC 659 (SCCO)