Medtia v Hamid & Anor

On a preliminary costs issue, an award must be fair and proportionate to the costs reasonably attributable to the relevant attendance. A party cannot justify a substantial claim merely by relying on an hourly rate accepted in an earlier costs order. The court may limit recovery to reasonable travel expenses and compensation for time spent as a litigant in person. A stay of enforcement ordered pending finalisation of an appeal cannot continue once the basis for the stay has ended.

The claimant appealed against an Oldham County Court judgment in favour of Dr Hamid. Mr Clare, the second defendant, had also obtained judgment with costs, later certified at £6,900. Although the appeal was directed only against Dr Hamid, the County Court had stayed enforcement of Mr Clare’s costs pending finalisation of the appeal. Mr Clare attended the appeal hearing and sought £2,730 for his time, calculated at an architect’s hourly rate, together with travel expenses. The preliminary issues were whether the stay could continue and what costs Mr Clare should receive for attending the hearing.

1. Stay. The stay of enforcement of Mr Clare’s costs could no longer stand. The claimant accepted that position. The Court of Appeal therefore ordered that the stay was no longer to operate.
2. Costs of attendance. Mr Clare was entitled in principle to an order for the costs of attending the hearing. The amount had to do justice between the parties and remain proportionate to the work reasonably attributable to that attendance. The court took account of the protracted nature of the litigation and Mr Clare’s failure to enquire of the claimant’s solicitors whether his attendance was necessary.
3. The claim for 40 hours at the architect’s rate of £65 per hour, amounting to £2,730, was disproportionate. The court could not regard that amount of time as reasonably chargeable to the claimant. Recovery was limited to the £180 rail fare and a further sum for Mr Clare’s time as a litigant in person for the day.
4. The operative order was that the stay should no longer stand and that the second defendant should receive £350 in costs. The judgment records no final disposition of the substantive appeal against Dr Hamid.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 21 May 2004, in [2004] EWCA Civ 666, the court lifted the stay of enforcement of Mr Clare’s costs and awarded him £350 for the appeal attendance.
2. Oldham County Court: Judgment was given in favour of Dr Hamid and Mr Clare. Mr Clare was awarded costs, later certified at £6,900. On 8 December 2003, enforcement of those costs was stayed pending finalisation of the appeal.