WOL (London) LLP v Croydon Investments Limited & Ors (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 485 (TCC)
Ashraful Alam Khokan v Jawad Hossain Nirjhor (Costs)
19 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1873 (KB)
High Court
A journalist sued another for defamation. The case was thrown out because the suing journalist didn't pay his legal bills. The judge decided the journalist who won the case should get his legal costs paid by the journalist who lost, because the loser had acted badly in bringing the case. The judge made sure the winning journalist didn't get all of his costs, looking closely at all the events in the case.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (Alam Khokan) sued Defendant (Hossein Nirjhor) for defamation related to a video published on social media.
- •The claim was struck out due to the Claimant's failure to pay a costs order of £20,646.58.
- •The Defendant sought indemnity costs; the Claimant sought to have the Defendant pay costs.
- •The claim had hallmarks of a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).
- •Disputes arose regarding the Defendant's pre-action conduct, engagement with settlement offers, the merits of the claim (including the veracity of intelligence reports), and social media posts.
- •The Defendant's costs budget was significantly revised.
Legal Principles
General rule on costs: unsuccessful party pays the successful party's costs (CPR 44.2(2)).
CPR 44.2(2)
Court's discretion on costs: considers all circumstances, including conduct of parties, partial success, and settlement offers (CPR 44.2(4)-(5)).
CPR 44.2(4)-(5)
Conduct of parties includes pre-action conduct, reasonableness of raising issues, manner of pursuing/defending the case, and exaggeration of claims (CPR 44.2(5)).
CPR 44.2(5)
Failure to engage in ADR doesn't automatically result in a costs penalty (Halsey v Milton Keynes).
Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576
Once a trial is not to proceed, the court does not decide whether the claim would have succeeded (Nelson’s Yard).
Nelson’s Yard Management Company v Eziefuela [2012] EWCA Civ 335
Indemnity costs awarded where conduct is outside the ordinary and reasonable conduct of proceedings (Excelsior Commercial, Esure Services, Three Rivers).
Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 879; Esure Services Ltd v Quarcoo [2009] EWCA Civ 595; Three Rivers DC v Bank of England [2006] EWHC 816 (Comm)
Revising costs budget requires significant developments and promptness (CPR 3.15A; Persimmon Homes).
CPR 3.15A; Persimmon Homes Ltd v Osborne Clarke LLP [2021] EWHC 831 (Ch)
Outcomes
Claimant to pay Defendant's costs on the standard basis.
The Claimant was unsuccessful, and there was no good reason to depart from the general rule. While the Defendant had some pre-action procedural missteps, these were outweighed by the Claimant's conduct, including the hallmarks of a SLAPP and evasiveness about finances.
Defendant's costs budget partially varied.
Some revisions reflected significant developments, while others lacked promptness and were deemed unnecessary.
Defendant's costs of consequential matters summarily assessed at £5,500.
The Defendant succeeded overall; disproportionate elements of the Defendant's costs request were removed.
Defendant's application for judgment under CPR 3.5 allowed.
The order striking out the claim was self-executing; however, the application remedied a procedural point raised by the Claimant.
Similar Cases
RESOURCE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS (DERBYSHIRE) LIMITED v DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL & Anor.
[2022] EWHC 1209 (TCC)
Northern Powerhouse Developments Limited & Ors v Gavin Lee Woodhouse
[2023] EWHC 1331 (Ch)
Charles Elphicke v Times Media Ltd
[2024] EWHC 2595 (KB)
Ashraful Alam Khokan v Jawad Hossain Nirjhor
[2024] EWHC 1872 (KB)