Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Iorashi

The unsuccessful party will ordinarily be ordered to pay the successful party’s costs. Where a costs schedule contains estimated figures rather than records of time actually spent, the court may decline to undertake a summary assessment and refer the costs to detailed assessment on the standard basis. A payment on account may nevertheless be ordered. Existing costs orders may be enforced where there is no sufficient reason to defer enforcement.

The judgment concerned the consequential costs issues following the dismissal of the defendant’s application to set aside a judgment entered in his absence. The court considered the parties’ written submissions on the costs of that application and the claimant’s request for permission to enforce earlier costs orders made by Nicol J and Eady J.

The issues were whether the usual costs rule should apply, whether the claimant’s costs could be summarily assessed on the submitted schedule, and whether enforcement of the earlier costs orders should be permitted.

1. The defendant’s application had been unsuccessful, and there were no grounds for departing from the usual rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs.
2. The court declined to carry out a summary assessment. The costs schedule contained estimated figures rather than figures reflecting time actually spent. It was also unclear whether the estimates related to a one-day hearing or the two days for which the hearing had originally been listed, and counsel’s fees appeared high for a one-day hearing.
3. The claimant’s costs were therefore referred to detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed.
4. The defendant was directed to pay £10,000 on account of those costs by 4 pm on 30 March 2012.
5. There was no reason why the claimant should not enforce the costs orders previously made by Nicol J and Eady J. Permission to enforce those orders was granted, and the orders were varied accordingly.

Earlier proceedings included:

• High Court: judgment was given in the defendant’s absence on 27 May 2011 by His Honour Judge Peter Clark, sitting as a judge of the High Court.
• High Court: the defendant’s application to set aside that judgment was dismissed in a judgment handed down on 8 February 2012.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): consequential costs and enforcement issues were determined in the present judgment.