Scenic International Group Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Richard Adenaike & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1178 (Ch)
AB v Michelle Spicer
7 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 321 (KB)
High Court
Someone broke a court order, and the other person wanted to be paid for the legal costs. The judge looked at how much was spent and said some of the charges were too high, reducing the amount the person who broke the order has to pay.
Key Facts
- •Defendant breached a court order (HHJ Simpkiss, 26 July 2022).
- •Claimant sought indemnity costs after a suspended committal order against the Defendant.
- •Disputes arose regarding the amount of costs claimed.
- •Claimant's solicitors are based in Sussex and used rates exceeding the National 2 Guideline Hourly Rates.
- •Defendant's late admissions were a factor in the case.
Legal Principles
Indemnity costs assessment: Costs must not be unreasonably incurred or unreasonable in amount; doubts resolved in favour of the receiving party.
CPR 44.3
Factors to consider when assessing costs (CPR 44.4): conduct of parties (before and during proceedings, efforts to resolve dispute), amount/value involved, importance of matter, complexity, skill/effort involved, time spent, place of work, receiving party's last approved budget.
CPR 44.4
If a rate in excess of the guideline rate is charged, clear and compelling justification must be provided.
Samsung Electronics v LG Display [2022] EWCA Civ 466 (Males LJ)
Outcomes
Claimant's costs were assessed on an indemnity basis.
Defendant's conduct in breaching the court order.
Costs exceeding National 2 Guideline Hourly Rates were deemed unreasonable and reduced.
Lack of justification for exceeding guideline rates (per Samsung Electronics v LG Display).
Total allowed costs: £34,454.56 (including VAT).
Detailed assessment of claimed costs, with adjustments made based on reasonableness and justification.
Similar Cases
Protopapas Solicitors (a firm) v John Michaelides & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2929 (SCCO)
Andrew William Warner Wootton & Anor v Tracy Jane Wootton & Ors
[2024] EWHC 325 (Ch)
Intersar Al-Balhaa & Anor v RMG Residential Management Group Ltd
[2024] EWHC 229 (KB)
Scott Halborg & Anor v Albert Halborg & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1190 (KB)