High Court Critiques Excessive Costs Claim in Hon Shu Pang & Anor v Justin Zinda Appeal

Citation: [2024] EWHC 176 (KB)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Hon Shu Pang & Anor v Justin Zinda, the High Court of Justice in the King’s Bench Division, presided over by Mr Justice Soole with Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker as assessor, deliberated on several points arising from an appeals case concerning the summary assessment of costs. The judgement meticulously critiques the appellant’s claim for costs related to preparation for and attendance at hearings, as well as various disbursements.

Key Facts

The case revolves around the appellant’s submission of costs incurred during the litigation process. The appellant, serving as a litigant in person, claimed significant hours spent on the preparation of court bundles, reading and re-reading of transcripts from the underlying action, and attendance at various hearings, including associated disbursements. Justice Soole addressed the reasonableness and necessity of these costs in the context of an appeal against decisions of Costs Judge James.

Several legal principles guided the decision-making process in this case:

  1. General Rule for Costs: Aligned with CPR 44.10, which establishes that if the court does not mention costs in its order, the presumption is that no party is entitled to costs unless there is permission to appeal or another specific circumstance mentioned in the rule.

  2. Litigants in Person: CPR 46.5 was a focal point, framing how litigants in person should be compensated—a rate per hour for time reasonably spent, or proof of financial loss.

  3. Reasonableness and Necessity: The foundational principle that costs must be reasonably and necessarily incurred directed the court’s assessment of whether the appellant’s claims for hours worked and earnings forgone were justifiable.

  4. Broad Brush Assessment: In situations where exact costs are challenging to determine due to excessive, unnecessary, or repetitive claims, the court may resort to an overall estimation of what is reasonable.

Judge Soole critically assessed the appellant’s submitted costs on the basis of these principles, noting that while allowances are made for litigants in person, this does not extend to unreasonable levels of compensation for time or costs that are not justifiably linked to the preparation or conduct of the case.

Outcomes

The outcome is a nuanced reflection on the balance between fair compensation for self-representation and guarding against excessive and unwarranted claims:

  • Claims for loss of earnings were substantially denied due to the conclusion that preparation for the appeal did not justify relinquishing employment, and all associated work could have been performed outside of typical working hours.

  • For the ‘work done on documents’ and ‘cases read’, the court greatly reduced the hours for which compensation was deemed reasonable, applying a ‘broad brush’ approach to reach a provisional allowance for the appellant’s time.

  • Disbursements were similarly scrutinized, with some approved and others drastically cut or dismissed due to a lack of justification, particularly concerning transcripts from hearings irrelevant to the appeal.

Finally, the court concluded with a 40% award of the summarily assessed costs to the appellant, aligning with the order on the 22nd of February 2023.

Conclusion

In Hon Shu Pang & Anor v Justin Zinda, Mr Justice Soole and Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker elucidated stringent standards for cost assessments in appeal cases, especially for litigants in person. This case reinforces the emphasis upon reasonableness and necessity as cornerstones for the determination of recoverable costs. Legal professionals are reminded through this judgement that while flexibility is given to self-represented litigants, claims for costs must still meet the test of being indispensable and moderate in their purview to warrant compensation within the justice system.