Philip John Mainwaring v Susan Claire Bailey (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 2614 (Fam)
Scott Halborg & Anor v Albert Halborg & Ors
19 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1190 (KB)
High Court
A lawyer, Mr. Halborg, lost a bunch of appeals because he was overly aggressive and didn't accept reasonable settlements. The judge was really angry about his behaviour, so he had to pay all the other lawyers' costs, and a lot of it.
Key Facts
- •Appeal involving 11 appeal notices and 169 grounds of appeal, primarily concerning case management decisions and civil restraint orders (CROs).
- •Permission granted on only six grounds, most relating to minor cost issues.
- •Appellant, Mr. Halborg (a solicitor), exhibited a pattern of excessive litigation and unreasonable conduct.
- •Significant volumes of documentation and arguments characterized the proceedings.
- •Respondents made several compromise offers that were largely ignored by the Appellant.
- •One ground of appeal was successful for the Appellant (relating to document inspection).
- •HHJ Walden-Smith struck out Claim G01LU395 as without merit and an abuse of process, noting Mr. Halborg's abusive litigation tactics.
- •Respondents sought indemnity costs due to the Appellant's conduct.
Legal Principles
General rule: Unsuccessful party pays costs of successful party.
CPR 44.2(2)(a)
Court considers all circumstances, including conduct of parties, partial success, and settlement offers.
CPR 44.2(4)
Conduct includes pre- and during-proceedings behavior, reasonableness of raising issues, and manner of pursuing/defending case.
CPR 44.2(5)
Indemnity costs awarded in exceptional circumstances; high bar to meet.
Implicit in CPR 44.2(4) & (5) and case law.
Costs of respondent's attendance at permission hearings are not awarded unless specific conditions are met.
CPR 52CPD B 8.1
Outcomes
Respondents awarded costs on an indemnity basis, except for minor reductions.
Appellant's unreasonable conduct, failure to accept reasonable compromise offers, and the overall abusive nature of the litigation.
Barrister Respondent's costs reduced by 5% to reflect limited unnecessary work.
While the appeal should not have proceeded, some minimal work was done on a successful ground.
Trust Respondent's costs on indemnity basis from 5th July 2022; standard basis before that date except for a 5% reduction for costs related to CRO appeals.
Failure to accept compromise offer from 4th July 2022; overall conduct considered but not sufficient for full indemnity costs before that date.
Respondents awarded costs for permission hearings on indemnity basis.
Exceptional circumstances: Appellant's numerous grounds of appeal and conduct necessitated Respondents' attendance for efficient disposal.
Interim costs payments ordered for each Respondent.
Proportionate to the claims and taking into account the basis of taxation and reductions.
Similar Cases
Miah Ibar Lone v Michael Andreas Petrou
[2024] EWHC 153 (KB)
Invenia Technical Computing Corporation & Anor v Matthew Hudson
[2024] EWHC 1302 (Ch)
Intersar Al-Balhaa & Anor v RMG Residential Management Group Ltd
[2024] EWHC 229 (KB)
Protopapas Solicitors (a firm) v John Michaelides & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2929 (SCCO)