Grand v Gill

On a costs application after a partly successful appeal, the court has discretion whether to order costs and in what amount. It must consider all the circumstances, including partial success, the reasonableness of pursuing particular issues and any exaggeration. If costs are awarded on the standard basis, only proportionate costs reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount are recoverable; doubts are resolved for the paying party. A litigant in person may recover fair compensation for time and reasonable disbursements directly referable to the issues on which success was achieved. Misdirected, wasted, excessive or unrelated work is not recoverable. The court may adopt a broad-brush summary assessment where the schedule is inadequately justified.

Tanya Grand brought proceedings against her former landlord, Param Gill, and was awarded £5,600 damages by His Honour Judge Karsten QC in the Central London County Court on 7 May 2009. On appeal, the Court of Appeal increased the damages and interest, substituting an award of £6,454.82 in [2011] EWCA Civ 554. It also ordered Mr Gill to pay £2,500 to a prescribed charity in respect of pro bono representation under section 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

Ms Grand then applied for £15,257.50 for her own time and disbursements, together with interest and a monetary sanction. The central issue was the extent to which a litigant in person could recover costs after succeeding only on limited issues in an appeal.

Lord Justice Rimer allowed the application in part. Lord Justice Lloyd and Lord Justice Thomas agreed.

1. Under CPR Part 44.3, the court had discretion whether to make a costs order and, if so, as to the amount. Relevant considerations included Ms Grand’s partial success, the reasonableness of raising or pursuing particular issues, and the exaggeration of her claim.
2. Any award had to be assessed on the standard basis under CPR Part 44.4. Only costs proportionate to the matters in issue, reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount were recoverable. Any doubt was to be resolved in favour of the paying party.
3. Ms Grand was entitled in principle to fair compensation for time and disbursements reasonably incurred in pursuing the appeal. Recovery was limited to work fairly referable to the two short issues on which she succeeded. Work that was misdirected, wasted, unsupported or unrelated to those issues was not recoverable. Costs of research were recoverable in principle: R. v Legal Services Commission, Ex p. Wulfsohn [2002] EWCA Civ 250; [2002] 3 Costs LR 341. However, the substantive research had made no material contribution to the appeal, so only ten hours of procedural research were allowed.
4. The court adopted a broad-brush summary assessment. It allowed selected proportions of attendance, document work and copying costs, while disallowing most claimed research, travel, correspondence and other disbursements. The total recoverable costs were £703.77. Interest and the requested £1,100 sanction were refused, and Mr Gill was ordered to pay the costs within 14 days.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In the present judgment, the court determined Ms Grand’s post-appeal application for her own costs and awarded £703.77.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2011] EWCA Civ 554, the court increased the damages and interest awarded on the appeal and ordered £2,500 costs to a prescribed charity.
3. Central London County Court — On 7 May 2009, His Honour Judge Karsten QC awarded Ms Grand £5,600 damages.