Key Facts
- •Cockerill J struck out the Kings' £58 million unlawful means conspiracy claim (CL-2020-000066) against various defendants, including Primekings Parties and TS Parties, certifying it as 'totally without merit'.
- •The Kings' claim alleged a 'costs conspiracy' and threats leading to the discontinuance of a prior 'Misrepresentation Claim'.
- •Nine defendants applied for wasted costs orders against the Kings' lawyers, Christopher Newman (counsel) and Metis Law (solicitors).
- •The wasted costs application involved a two-stage process; this judgment concerns Stage 1, determining suitability for a Stage 2 hearing.
- •The Applicants (Primekings Parties and TS Parties) argued the Respondents (Newman and Metis Law) acted improperly, unreasonably, or negligently in pursuing the hopeless claim.
- •The Respondents argued the application was too complex for summary determination and that challenging Cockerill J's findings would be a collateral attack.
Legal Principles
Wasted costs orders can be made against legal representatives for improper, unreasonable, or negligent acts causing unnecessary costs.
Senior Courts Act 1981, s.51; CPR PD 46 rule 5.5
Wasted costs applications should be simple and summary, proportionate to the sum claimed, and avoid costly satellite litigation.
Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205; Medcalf v Mardell [2002] UKHL 27
A solicitor can rely on counsel's advice but not blindly; they must exercise independent judgment and reject obviously wrong advice.
Isaacs Partnership v Umm Al-Jawaby Oil Service Co Ltd [2003] EWHC 2539 (QB); Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Locke v Camberwell Health Authority [2002] Lloyds Rep PN 23
Findings in a prior judgment are not res judicata in a wasted costs application, but challenging them may be considered a collateral attack.
Brown v Bennett [2002] 1 WLR 713; Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow [2004] Ch 1; R (on the application of B) v X Crown Court [2009] EWHC 1149 (Admin)
Outcomes
The wasted costs applications were dismissed at Stage 1.
The applications were deemed too complex for summary determination, involving numerous allegations, alternative scenarios, and significant causation issues unsuitable for a brief hearing. The court was not satisfied that a wasted costs order was likely, given the complexity and the lack of access to privileged material.