Radu v Houston & Anor

In an appellate costs ruling, the court may apportion costs by hearing and issue, taking account of each party’s conduct and relative success. A party that resisted security but ultimately had to provide it may be ordered to pay the costs of the relevant hearing. Where a respondent’s conduct contributed to an unnecessary appeal, the respondent may be ordered to pay the appeal costs. Interim payments may be paid into court pending assessment of costs, with applications for release dealt with by a Master.

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from proceedings in the Queen’s Bench Division before Eady J and Master Eyre. The proceedings concerned security for costs, a default judgment and related applications. The appellant had made an offer by letter dated 12 January 2006, which the respondents did not accept or answer. The appeal was allowed. The supplied ruling addresses the consequential allocation of costs, including costs before Master Turner and Eady J, and the treatment of interim payments.

The appeal was allowed. Lord Justice Waller gave the ruling after discussing the costs issue with Lord Justices Keene and Carnwath.

1. The appellants were ordered to pay the costs of the hearing before Master Turner. They had resisted providing security but ultimately had to provide security in the sum of £80,000.
2. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. Their decision to maintain the default judgment and their failure to accept or respond to the offer made on 12 January 2006 had contributed to the need for the appeal, on which the appellants succeeded.
3. As to the costs before Eady J, the appellants were awarded half their costs. The court considered that the appellants should have succeeded on setting aside the default judgment, although they had not succeeded in removing the security order altogether. The January offer did not cover the costs before Master Turner, which had separately been awarded against the appellants.
4. The half-costs order in respect of Eady J included the application to expand the appeal and the barrel hearing; no separate order was made for those matters.
5. Interim payments already ordered were to be paid into court by the respondents pending any assessment relating to the costs orders. Any application for release was to be dealt with by a Master.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): in [2006] EWCA Civ 1700, the appeal was allowed and consequential costs and payment orders were made.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: proceedings before Eady J and Master Eyre concerning security for costs and setting aside a default judgment. The citation is not stated in the judgment.