Henderson & Jones Limited v David Jason Ross & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1585 (Ch)
Ineos Upstream Limited & Ors v Joseph Boyd & Anor
14 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1756 (Ch)
High Court
A long legal battle ended with the judge saying one side (Claimants) had to pay the other side's (Defendants) legal fees. Because the Claimants wasted time, they have to pay extra for a part of that time. The judge also made the Claimants pay some money upfront before the full amount of the fees is worked out. The Claimants also have to pay interest on top of the fees.
Key Facts
- •This case concerns outstanding consequential matters arising from a previous judgment dated 8 February 2023 ([2023] EWHC 214 (Ch)).
- •The case has a long history, involving previous judgments from Morgan J, the Court of Appeal, and HHJ Klein.
- •Disputes remain regarding costs of the remitted costs, interim payments, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
- •Defendants (D6 and D7) argued for indemnity costs based on claimants' conduct and delays.
- •Claimants argued for standard basis costs and disputed the quantum of interim payments and interest.
- •HHJ Klein's previous judgment found claimants' conduct to be inexcusable delay (before August 2021) and improper conduct (after August 2021).
Legal Principles
Indemnity costs are awarded when a party's conduct falls outside the norm.
Three Rivers DC v Bank of England [2006] EWHC 816 (Comm) at [25]
The court has broad discretion in awarding costs, including interest.
Judgment ([2023] EWHC 1756 (Ch))
A reasonable sum on account of costs must be ordered unless there is good reason not to.
CPR 44.2(8)
Post-judgment interest runs from the date of the costs order (incipitur rule).
Judgments Act 1838, CPR 40.8, CPR 44.2(6)(g)
The court has discretion to defer post-judgment interest.
CPR 40.8(2) and CPR 44.2(6)(g)
Pre-judgment interest may be awarded, taking into account the date costs were incurred.
CPR 44.2(6)(g)
Outcomes
Claimants to pay defendants' Costs of the Remitted Costs on a standard basis, except for August 2021 to 25 March 2022 (indemnity basis).
Claimants' conduct after August 2021 was found to be improper, justifying indemnity costs for that period based on HHJ Klein's findings. Conduct before and after this period did not justify indemnity costs.
Claimants to pay interim payment on account of D6's costs of £200,000.
Despite D6's inadequate costs information, an interim payment is warranted, reflecting the work undertaken, but with caution due to the lack of clarity and potential overestimation.
Claimants to pay interim payment on account of D7's costs of £167,500.
This amount represents 50% of D7's claimed costs, reflecting a cautious approach given the limited and unclear information provided.
Post-judgment interest at 8% to run from the date of the relevant costs orders.
The court found no good reason to defer the start date for post-judgment interest.
Pre-judgment interest on D7's costs at 2% over base rate from the date liability to pay accrued.
This rate is considered a modest commercial rate, reflecting the circumstances and historical low interest rates. The date of accrual will be determined through detailed assessment if necessary.
Similar Cases
Tanka Thakali & Ors v Navin Kumar Gauchan & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3032 (SCCO)
Chedington Events Limited v Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake & Anor (Quantum trial consequential orders)
[2024] EWHC 11 (Ch)
Protopapas Solicitors (a firm) v John Michaelides & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2929 (SCCO)
Christopher Bell v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
[2024] EWHC 650 (KB)