WOL (London) LLP v Croydon Investments Limited & Ors (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 485 (TCC)
RESOURCE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS (DERBYSHIRE) LIMITED v DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL & Anor.
5 May 2023
[2022] EWHC 1209 (TCC)
High Court
Two councils lost their court case against a company. They tried to get the company to pay all their legal costs, arguing the company's defence was bad. The judge said the councils' arguments weren't that bad, so the councils had to pay most of the company's legal costs, but not all of them.
Key Facts
- •Resource Recovery Solutions (Derbyshire) Limited (Claimant) v Derbyshire County Council & Derby City Council (Defendants)
- •Defendants applied for summary judgment/strike out and to strike out parts of the Claimant's Reply to the Defence.
- •Judge dismissed Defendants' applications.
- •Disputes arose regarding costs orders following the dismissal.
- •Claimant sought indemnity costs; Defendants sought costs to be reserved or borne by each party.
Legal Principles
Indemnity costs are awarded only in exceptional circumstances where the conduct of a party is unreasonable to a high degree, or other particular circumstances take the case 'out of the norm'.
Excelsior Commercial & Industrial Holdings Limited v Salisbury Hammer Aspden & Johnson [2002] EWCA 879; CPR 44.3.9
Pursuing a weak case does not automatically justify indemnity costs, unless the claim was hopeless or pursued for ulterior motives.
Elvanite Full Circle Limited v Amec Earth and Environmental (UK) Limited [2013] EWHC 1643 (TCC); Kiam v MGN Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 66; Wates Construction Limited v HGP Greentree Allchurch Evans Limited [2005] EWHC 2174 (TCC); Arcadia Group Brands Ltd & Ors v Visa Inc & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 883
Dishonesty or moral blame is not required for indemnity costs, but the order carries a penal, not exhortatory, nature.
Excelsior Commercial & Industrial Holdings Limited v Salisbury Hammer Aspden & Johnson [2002] EWCA 879; Kiam v MGN Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 66; Courtwell Properties Ltd v Greencore PF (UK) Ltd [2014] EWHC 184
Outcomes
Costs of the summary judgment/strike-out application awarded to the Claimant on a standard basis, not indemnity.
While the Defendants' application was ambitious and unlikely to succeed, it wasn't unreasonable to a high degree. Allegations of improper motive were deemed unhelpful but not sufficient to justify indemnity costs.
Costs of the Reply Strike Out application awarded to the Defendants for the period before the Amended Reply; to the Claimant for the period after.
Defendants were justified in their initial application to strike out parts of the original Reply, which was prolix and contained argument and submission. However, the continued pursuit of complaints after the Amended Reply was unsuccessful.
Similar Cases
Invenia Technical Computing Corporation & Anor v Matthew Hudson
[2024] EWHC 1302 (Ch)
Ashraful Alam Khokan v Jawad Hossain Nirjhor (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 1873 (KB)
Afan Valley Limited v Lupton Fawcett (a firm) & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2498 (KB)
TCPC Management Limited v Windrush Alliance UK Community Interest Company
[2024] EWHC 809 (Ch)