Professional Information Technology Consultants Ltd v Jones

The incidence and amount of costs are matters for the trial judge’s discretion. The general rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs is subject to all the circumstances, including party conduct and admissible settlement offers. Under CPR 44.3(6), the court may award a proportion of costs or costs from a specified date. A late and fundamental amendment does not require one particular costs order. The principle in Beoco v Alfa Laval Co provides a general approach, but the court may achieve a principled result by awarding only a proportion of the successful party’s costs. The Court of Appeal will interfere only where the trial judge was plainly wrong.

The claimant recovered £13,463.95 from the defendant for expenditure on a car and training provided under an agreement. The Recorder awarded the claimant two-thirds of its costs. The defendant appealed that costs order, relying on a late amendment to the particulars of claim and a without-prejudice offer made before trial. She sought costs from an earlier date and a stay of execution of the judgment debt pending assessment. The central issue was whether the Recorder had exercised his costs discretion impermissibly by failing expressly to refer to the offer and by not applying the approach in Beoco v Alfa Laval Co.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder’s order that the claimant recover two-thirds of its costs was within his discretion.
2. The incidence and amount of costs are matters for the trial judge. Appellate intervention is justified only where the judge was plainly wrong.
3. Under the Civil Procedure Rules, the unsuccessful party will generally pay the successful party’s costs, but the court must consider all the circumstances, including the parties’ conduct and any admissible offer to settle. CPR 44.3(6) permits an award of a proportion of costs or costs limited by time.
4. The Recorder had taken account of the substantial amendment, the length and conduct of the litigation, the excessive costs compared with the sum at stake, and the fact that the defendant might have settled earlier if the case had been properly pleaded. The fact that he did not expressly mention the January offer was immaterial because he had been referred to it and his order went in some respects further than the offer.
5. The general principle in Beoco v Alfa Laval Co does not prescribe the only permissible response to a fundamental late amendment. A proportionate costs order may properly reflect both the amendment and the parties’ conduct. The existing stay of execution was not continued. The appeal was dismissed with costs summarily assessed at £5,000 including VAT.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal from the Central London County Court was dismissed, and the stay of execution was not continued.
• Central London County Court: Mr Recorder Sapsford QC ordered the defendant to pay the claimant £13,463.95 and two-thirds of the claimant’s costs.