Amber Construction Services Ltd v London Interspace HG Ltd

Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 45, fixed costs apply by default where the specified conditions are met, but the court retains discretion to order otherwise. A claimant cannot avoid the fixed-cost regime by leaving the solicitor’s commencement costs blank on the claim form. In adjudication-enforcement proceedings, that discretion may properly be exercised to award substantially higher costs where the defendant was warned that proceedings would be issued, maintained an arguable jurisdictional defence, and admitted liability only after proceedings had begun.

The claimant sought enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision awarding it money against the defendant. Before proceedings were issued, the claimant warned that enforcement proceedings would follow unless payment was made. The defendant maintained that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction and made a settlement offer without accepting that the adjudicated sum was payable.

The claimant then issued Part 7 proceedings and applied for summary judgment. The defendant acknowledged service and admitted the amount claimed after issue. The central issue was whether the claimant’s costs were limited to the fixed amount under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 45, or whether the court should exercise its discretion to award higher costs.

1. Fixed-cost regime. Part 45 applied because the claim was for a specified sum exceeding £25 and none of the alternative judgment or strike-out provisions applied. The relevant route was rule 45.3, because the defendant paid or admitted the claim after service of the proceedings. The default fixed cost for a claim exceeding £5,000 was £100.
2. Discretion to order otherwise. The wording of rules 45.1 and 45.3 preserved the court’s discretion to order costs other than the fixed amount. The claimant could not avoid the regime merely because the commencement-cost box on the claim form had been left blank.
3. Exercise of discretion. The discretion should be exercised in the claimant’s favour. Adjudication-enforcement proceedings require a prompt procedure. The claimant had waited about four weeks after the adjudicator’s decision, had clearly warned that proceedings would be issued without further notice, and was confronted with an apparent jurisdictional defence. The defendant’s without-prejudice offer did not amount to an agreement to postpone proceedings. The claimant had substantially followed the Technology and Construction Court procedure, including issuing a Part 24 application supported by evidence and relevant documents. It was therefore fair to award costs substantially exceeding the fixed amount.
4. Assessment. The court allowed reasonable solicitor and trainee time for understanding the dispute, client attendances and correspondence, but reduced the time claimed for work on documents. The claimant’s costs were summarily assessed at £6,162.