Edel Marie Magee & Ors v John Wade Crocker & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2353 (Ch)
Mustafa Erdem Baldudak v Mark Matteo (Costs)
15 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 301 (Ch)
High Court
One person sued another over who owned a house. The first person won. The judge said the winner should get most of their legal costs paid by the loser, but reduced the amount slightly because the winner hadn’t been entirely straightforward. The winner also got some of their legal costs paid immediately, even though the final amount still needed to be worked out.
Key Facts
- •Claimant sought a declaration that the Property was held on trust for him alone.
- •Defendant counterclaimed.
- •Claimant succeeded on his claim and Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
- •Disputes arose over costs, including whether the Claimant should receive all costs, costs from a specific date, or a payment on account.
- •The Claimant's conduct regarding disclosure of WhatsApp messages was questioned.
Legal Principles
General rule: unsuccessful party pays costs of successful party (CPR 44.2(2)). Court may depart from this rule.
CPR Part 44.2
Aim is to make an order reflecting the overall justice of the case, bearing in mind the overriding objective.
HLB Kidsons v Lloyds Underwriters [2008] 3 Costs LR 427; Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd v Baskan Gida Sanayi Ve Pazarlama AS [2010] 5 Costs LR 657
Court may depart from the general rule, but should give real weight to the overall success of the winning party.
AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 1507
Court considers conduct of parties, success on part of the case, and whether it's practical to make an issue-based order (CPR 44.2(4), (5), (7)).
CPR 44.2(4), (5), (7)
Court may disallow costs or order a party to pay costs caused by unreasonable or improper conduct (CPR 44.11).
CPR 44.11(1)(b) and (2)(a) and (b)
Court may set off costs or delay certificate issuance if a party is both entitled to and liable for costs (CPR 44.12).
CPR 44.12
A payment on account of costs should be ordered unless there is good reason not to (CPR 44.2(8)).
CPR 44.2(8)
Contingent and uncertain costs entitlements should not defeat a party’s sure entitlement to an interim payment.
Benyatov v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd [2020] 1 WLR 2913
In cost management orders, the receiving party's budget is a sensible starting point for determining a reasonable payment on account. 90% of budgeted costs is appropriate absent good reason to depart.
Thomas Pink Ltd v Victoria’s Secret [2015] 3 Costs LR 463
Outcomes
Claimant is the successful party.
He succeeded on his claim, and the Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
Claimant's costs reduced by 15% to reflect conduct regarding non-disclosure and failure to rely on his witness statement.
Claimant's conduct in relation to non-disclosure caused additional costs, and he did not use his trial witness statement.
Defendant to pay 85% of Claimant's costs (standard basis).
Reflects the 15% reduction for Claimant's conduct.
Defendant to make a payment on account of £90,000.
No good reason to depart from the usual rule for payment on account, despite Defendant's outstanding costs from previous proceedings. The court considered the Claimant's budget and the lack of a significant ADR process.