Shadi Al Tarboush v Yusuf Cassam
[2024] EWHC 639 (KB)
Kirsty Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports & Anor (Wasted Costs Order Judgment)
24 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2415 (KB)
High Court
A company sued a claimant's lawyers for wasting their money on a case they felt should have settled earlier. The judge looked at whether the lawyers acted badly. They found the lawyers didn’t, mostly because the claimant had lied and the lawyers couldn't reveal their advice as the claimant refused to allow it. Because of this lack of evidence and the high cost of the legal battle the case was thrown out.
Key Facts
- •Defendant applied for a wasted costs order (WCO) against Claimant's solicitors (Respondent) in a personal injury claim.
- •Claimant suffered a brain injury and sued Defendant, who admitted partial liability but asserted fundamental dishonesty.
- •The Court found the Claimant fundamentally dishonest, dismissing the claim and awarding no costs to the Defendant.
- •Defendant alleges Respondent failed to analyze relevant documents showing Claimant's dishonesty and failed to settle or terminate the retainer.
- •Claimant maintains privilege over advice received from Respondent.
Legal Principles
Wasted costs orders (WCOs) are primarily compensatory, aiming to address improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct by legal representatives that causes wasted costs.
Senior Courts Act 1981, s. 51; CPR rule 46.8; Practice Direction PD46; Myers v Elman [1940] AC 282; Ridehalgh & Ors. v Horsefield & Ors. [1994] CH 205
A lawyer is not liable for a WCO simply for pursuing a hopeless case on a client's instructions. The judge, not the lawyer, decides the case's merit.
Ridehalgh & Ors. v Horsefield & Ors. [1994] CH 205; Rondel v Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191; Dempsey v Johnson [2003] EWCA Civ. 1134
In WCO applications, the court must consider legal professional privilege. If a client doesn't waive privilege, the court must make full allowance for the lawyer's inability to tell the whole story and give the lawyer the benefit of the doubt.
Ridehalgh & Ors. v Horsefield & Ors. [1994] CH 205; Medcalf v Mardell [2002] UKHL 27
Causation is essential for a successful WCO application. The Applicant must demonstrate a causal link between the legal representative's conduct and the incurred wasted costs.
Ridehalgh & Ors. v Horsefield & Ors. [1994] CH 205; Brown v Bennett [2002] 1 WLR 713
Solicitors have a duty to investigate carefully and ensure full and proper disclosure of all relevant documents.
Hedrich v Standard Bank [2008] EWCA Civ. 905; Matthews and Malek on Disclosure, Ch. 14
Outcomes
The Defendant's application for a wasted costs order was dismissed.
The Court found insufficient evidence of unreasonable or negligent conduct by the Respondent, except for possibly the drafting of the Claimant's October 2022 witness statement. However, even in that instance, the Court couldn't establish causation between this alleged misconduct and any wasted costs. The Court also considered the application to be disproportionate given the lack of specificity regarding wasted costs and the high cost of pursuing the WCO application itself.
Similar Cases
Anthony Douglas King & Ors. v Barry Stiefel & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 453 (Comm)
Rainer Hughes Solicitors v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 585 (KB)
Camran Mirza & Ors v CMS Cameron McKenna Mabarro Olswang LLP
[2024] EWHC 2058 (Ch)
Philip John Mainwaring v Susan Claire Bailey (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 2614 (Fam)