Shah & Anor v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd

Where a party has succeeded on all the agreed issues, the general rule is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs. A court should depart from that rule only where the circumstances justify doing so. Minor or subsidiary losses will not ordinarily justify an issues-based costs order or a reduction in the proportion of costs payable where they have little significance in the litigation as a whole. The applicable procedural rule was Civil Procedure Rules 1998, CPR 44.3(2)(a).

The claimants’ substantive claim against the defendant had been dismissed by an earlier judgment, [2012] EWHC 1283 (QB). The court then ordered an interim payment towards the defendant’s costs and directed the claimants to provide a skeleton argument addressing the final determination of costs.

The claimants failed to make the ordered payment and did not provide the required skeleton argument. The defendant applied for an order that the claimants pay its costs in full. The central issue was whether the court should depart from the general costs rule because of subsidiary points on which the defendant had not succeeded.

1. The claimants had succeeded on none of the ten agreed issues. The defendant therefore was the successful party in the litigation as a whole.

2. Under CPR 44.3(2)(a), the general rule is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs. The court found no basis to depart from that rule.

3. The fact that the defendant had lost on some subsidiary points did not justify an issues-based costs order or an order limiting the claimants’ liability to a proportion of the defendant’s costs. Those points were of little significance in the context of the litigation as a whole.

4. The claimants were ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. The court also noted their failure to comply with the earlier orders concerning the interim payment and costs submissions.

The judgment records that the substantive claim had previously been dismissed in [2012] EWHC 1283 (QB). This judgment determined the consequential costs issues.