Lansdowne House (St George's Hill) Ltd v Liberty Syndicate Management Ltd & Anor

A party preparing a Scott Schedule in construction litigation must present each alleged defect and the recoverable costs attributable to it with sufficient clarity for the opposing parties to know the case and sums they must meet. A claimant retains reasonable control over how it presents its case, but that entitlement does not justify a schedule containing overlapping global sums or failing to identify costs uniquely attributable to individual defects. Costs consequences should reflect the parties’ respective responsibility and the proportionality of their response. Where defective schedules require repeated hearings and revisions, the court may make staged costs orders, assess costs summarily, reduce them to reflect likely detailed assessment, and defer payment while imposing interest.

The judgment concerned costs arising from the claimant’s defective Scott Schedules in construction litigation. The claimant alleged defects in refurbishment works against an insurer and structural engineers. An earlier case management order required separate schedules identifying each defect and the quantum claimed for it.

The schedule served by the claimant used overlapping global sums and did not identify the unique cost attributable to each defect. The court refused permission to rely on it, ordered revisions, and reserved the costs of the relevant hearings and applications. The revised schedule remained materially inadequate, requiring a further version before the defendants accepted it. The central issue was how those reserved costs should be allocated and assessed.

1. Costs responsibility. The claimant bore the principal responsibility for the wasted costs because it prepared the Scott Schedule without appropriate professional advice and failed to present the alleged defects and associated costs in a litigation-ready form. A claimant is entitled to present its case as it wishes, within reason, but must do so in a way that enables each defendant to understand the case and sums claimed.
2. Defendants’ conduct. The defendants’ reaction was not wholly proportionate. Their attempt to attack the schedule root and branch was coupled with limited willingness to work with the existing document. The court also recognised that its own earlier directions could have been more precise.
3. Costs orders. The claimant was ordered to pay 50% of each defendant’s costs of the hearing on 23 November 2010 and of the Second Defendant’s application dated 17 November 2010. The claimant was to bear its own costs of that hearing and application. It was ordered to pay all the defendants’ costs incurred in dealing with revisions between 23 November 2010 and service of the final schedule on 11 February 2011, and to bear its own revision costs.
4. Assessment and payment. The First Defendant’s costs were summarily assessed at £22,685 and the Second Defendant’s at £20,300, after reductions of 25% to reflect the likely outcome of detailed assessment. Because the claimant was not a substantial enterprise, payment was deferred. The assessed costs were to carry interest at 2% from the date of judgment until payment or set-off against a later costs order in the claimant’s favour.