WOL (London) LLP v Croydon Investments Limited & Ors (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 485 (TCC)
Afan Valley Limited v Lupton Fawcett (a firm) & Ors
8 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2498 (KB)
High Court
Lawyers won a case against their former clients. The judge said the lawyers mostly won but didn't get all their legal fees because they lost on some small points. The clients have to pay most of the lawyers' fees.
Key Facts
- •Claimants (Afan Valley Limited and others) brought a claim against their former solicitors, Lupton Fawcett LLP ('LF') and Metis Law firms.
- •Claimants applied to amend their Particulars of Claim and LF applied to strike out the claim against them.
- •The court refused permission to amend against LF and Metis and granted LF's application to strike out and dismiss the claim against them.
- •The court subsequently held a hearing to address consequential matters, including costs.
- •The Claimants sought permission to appeal, but the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to consider this retrospectively.
Legal Principles
If no permission application is made at the original decision hearing, and there has been no adjournment, the lower court is no longer seized of the matter and cannot consider any retrospective application for permission to appeal.
CPR 52.3(2)(a), McDonald v Rose [2019] EWCA Civ 4 at [21(4)]
The unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party, unless a different order is made.
CPR 44.2(2)(a)
The court may make different orders for costs in relation to discrete issues, considering where a party has been successful on one issue but unsuccessful on another.
Johnsey Estates (1990) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] EWCA Civ 535; Summit Property Ltd v Pitmans [2001] EWCA Civ 2020; Capita (Banstead 2011) Ltd v RFIB Group Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1032 at [41]
In deciding costs orders, courts should avoid overly detailed analysis and give real weight to overall success.
F&C Alternative Investments [2011] EWHC 2807 (Ch) at [5], Fox v Foundation Piling Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 790 at [62], F&C Alternative Investments [2012] EWCA Civ 843, HLB Kidsons v Lloyd’s Underwriters (Costs) [2007] EWHC 2699 (Comm)
Where costs have been incurred by a successful defendant’s insurers, the court has discretion to allow interest on costs.
Fosse Motor Engineers Ltd v Conde Nast and National Magazine Distributors [2008] EWHC 2527 (QB) at [10]
Outcomes
LF entitled to 75% of its costs for the strike-out/summary judgment application, including amendment costs.
LF was the overall successful party, but a reduction reflects points where they were unsuccessful.
Claimants to pay 50% of LF's costs as an interim payment.
Reflects potential cost reductions on detailed assessment.
Metis entitled to their costs, including those for consequential matters.
Metis were successful parties.
Interim payment for Metis set at 50% of their costs.
Reflects potential cost reductions on detailed assessment.
LF entitled to the balance of its costs, subject to detailed assessment.
No reason to depart from the usual rule.
Discontinued defendants entitled to their costs.
No reason to depart from the usual rule.
Claimants to bear costs of the extension of time application.
Claimants' failure to factor in potential amendments arising from the Woodhouse judgment.
Claimants to bear adjournment costs for both LF and Metis.
Claimants' responsibility for the adjournment due to failure to contact MBi to waive privilege.
Metis entitled to interest at 2% above base rate on adjournment costs.
Standard practice in commercial disputes, and insurers can recover interest.
Similar Cases
RESOURCE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS (DERBYSHIRE) LIMITED v DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL & Anor.
[2022] EWHC 1209 (TCC)
Kew Green Group Limited & Anor v Jamerson Lamb & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1628 (KB)
SZ Solicitors (a firm) & Ors v Jaswant Singh Bharj & Anor
[2024] EWCC 5
Suzanne Merrills v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 1788 (Admin)