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.