Ultraframe (UK) Ltd. v Fielding & Ors

A court should hesitate before materially altering a judgment after it has been handed down. Reconsideration may be justified in exceptional circumstances, such as a palpable error where correction would avoid an appeal. It is rarely appropriate to reopen contentious matters or permit a party to advance a new case. Where the original decision involved a discretionary, holistic assessment, the court should not dismantle and reconstruct its reasoning merely because a different analytical approach might have produced a different result.

Following trial of four related actions, the court made a discretionary costs order. Ultraframe (UK) Ltd. applied for reconsideration, arguing that the costs should have been assessed in a more compartmentalised manner. The application was made after judgment had been given and after full submissions had been made on both sides. The central issue was whether the circumstances justified reopening the delivered costs judgment.

1. The court had jurisdiction to reconsider its costs ruling under the principles in Re Barrell Enterprises [1973] 1 WLR 19, as explained in Robinson v Bird [2003] EWCA Civ 1820.
2. After a judgment has been handed down, the court must hesitate long and hard before making a material alteration. Reconsideration is reserved for exceptional circumstances. A palpable error may justify correction where this would save the parties the expense of an appeal. Reopening contentious matters or allowing a party to add to its case or advance a new case will rarely be appropriate.
3. The present application did not arise from the judge’s own conclusion that the judgment was wrong. Full submissions had already been made. The costs decision involved an overall discretionary assessment, including a substantial end allowance applied across the costs. Reworking it in the compartmentalised manner proposed would require complete reconsideration of the reasoning process.
4. The judge was not persuaded that he had made a palpable error or that justice required the costs judgment to be reopened. The application was dismissed with costs summarily assessed at £1,750.

The judgment records an earlier costs ruling following the trial of the related actions. No appeal history is stated.