Amin & Anor v Amin & Ors

The court has a broad discretion to award costs on the indemnity basis, but that order requires conduct or circumstances taking the case outside the norm. High-level unreasonableness or conduct deserving disapproval may suffice. Costs should reflect the litigation as a whole, while accounting for distinct issues, parties and previous costs orders. Where separate proceedings substantially overlap, a single rolled-up order may be appropriate if other parties are not prejudiced. A broad-brush percentage approach may be used where precise issue-by-issue assessment would be disproportionate, provided the court takes account of the relative weight of the issues and the parties’ different positions.

The judgment determined costs arising from two related proceedings: company proceedings concerning VU Chem and partnership proceedings involving several partnerships and property disputes. The substantive judgments had resolved the parties’ claims, including issues concerning unfair prejudice, partnership interests, property ownership, valuation, quantum meruit and occupation rent.

The court considered whether costs should be awarded issue by issue or through a single order, whether any costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis, how costs should be allocated between the two proceedings and the appropriate interim payment on account.

1. Indemnity costs. The court held that indemnity costs require something in the conduct of the proceedings or the circumstances of the case which takes the case out of the norm. Where the paying party’s conduct is relied upon, there must be an element deserving some mark of disapproval; high-degree unreasonableness may suffice. The refusal of an offer and the pursuit of weak valuation challenges did not, in the context of the litigation as a whole, justify indemnity costs, although the conduct was relevant to the allocation of standard-basis costs.
2. Approach to the two proceedings. The court preferred an overall order covering both actions. The proceedings substantially overlapped, and a single order avoided disproportionate and contentious apportionment. The court nevertheless considered the individual issues and parties before determining the overall percentages.
3. Issue-specific conclusions. Vatsal and Anju were liable for the principal costs of the unsuccessful company proceedings, subject to a reduction reflecting Bhavini’s conduct. Costs relating to Harshika’s quantum meruit claim and the Mother’s Cashco claim were to be treated as expenses of Cashco. Various successful or unsuccessful partnership and property issues attracted standard-basis costs orders in favour of the party achieving the greater measure of success. The court declined to make indemnity orders for the Minor Partnerships, Lloyd Avenue, the Kingswood Manor furniture issue, or the Locus Group and MPIC issues.
4. Overall order. The court provisionally attributed 33% of Udi and Bhavini’s total costs to the company proceedings and ordered Vatsal and Anju to pay that percentage. In relation to the partnership proceedings, Vatsal and Udi were each to pay 25% of the other’s total costs, subject to possible agreement producing a single net order. The court ordered payment on account of £214,500, subject to confirmation that Udi and Bhavini’s total costs exceeded £1.3 million.
5. The court refused, at that stage, to award pre-judgment interest on costs because there was no evidence that the receiving parties had paid the relevant solicitors’ bills.

First-instance costs judgment following the court’s earlier main judgment and supplementary judgment in the same litigation. The judgment does not state any appellate decision.