Scenic International Group Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Richard Adenaike & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1178 (Ch)
Suzanne Merrills v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
11 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1788 (Admin)
High Court
A court case ended with the losing side (Claimant) having to pay the winning sides’ (Defendant & Interested Party) legal bills. The judge reduced the amount the Claimant has to pay the Defendant. The judge said that the Interested Party should only get paid for the essential parts of their work, not everything they did. The Claimant and the winning sides now need to agree on the exact final amount.
Key Facts
- •Claimant applied for an extension of time and the Defendant and Second Interested Party (IP2) applied for declarations of no jurisdiction.
- •All three applications were heard together.
- •Defendant's costs claim: £12,963.50.
- •IP2's costs claim: £24,014.00.
- •Claimant's costs: £20,872.00.
Legal Principles
Costs usually follow the event.
General rule in civil proceedings
Interested parties do not normally have their costs paid by the losing party, unless justified.
Bolton Metropolitan Borough District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (Costs) [1996] 1 All ER 184
CPR Part 54 justifies exceptions to the Bolton principle regarding interested party costs for acknowledgement of service and summary of grounds.
CPRE (Kent) v SSCLG [2021] UKSC 36
Costs are always at the court's discretion, considering all circumstances.
Case law
Outcomes
Claimant to pay Defendant's costs, reduced to £7,500.
Defendant successfully resisted the extension of time and jurisdiction applications; however, the court considered the Defendant's costs claim excessive.
IP2's claim for costs partially allowed.
While IP2's initial application was reasonable, its continued active participation after the Defendant made the same application was deemed unnecessary. The court will only allow costs for the acknowledgement of service, submission of the jurisdiction application, liaison with the defendant, establishing the Defendant's position, and maintaining a watching brief. A revised cost schedule is required.
Payment plan for Defendant's costs to be agreed within 28 days.
Claimant wishes to arrange a payment plan.
Similar Cases
Tanka Thakali & Ors v Navin Kumar Gauchan & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3032 (SCCO)
WOL (London) LLP v Croydon Investments Limited & Ors (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 485 (TCC)
Intersar Al-Balhaa & Anor v RMG Residential Management Group Ltd
[2024] EWHC 229 (KB)
Andrew William Warner Wootton & Anor v Tracy Jane Wootton & Ors
[2024] EWHC 325 (Ch)