Mireskandari v Solicitors Regulation Authority

Where an appeal has been withdrawn, the court may dismiss it and determine the associated costs. Substantial costs may properly be summarily assessed where the history and conduct of the litigation create a substantial risk that taxation would generate further unreasonable and abusive challenges. Indemnity costs are justified where the litigation has been pursued abusively and unreasonably, including through a last-minute and hopeless application for an adjournment. Security paid into court may be released without a stay where the prospects of a renewed appeal application do not justify delaying payment.

The claimant’s appeal came to an end after the court refused a last-minute application for an adjournment. The court therefore considered the costs of resisting that application and the costs of the appeal. The issues were whether the costs should be summarily assessed or left to detailed assessment, whether they should be awarded on the indemnity basis, and whether payment out of security should be stayed pending a possible renewed application to the Court of Appeal.

1. The appeal, having been withdrawn, was dismissed.
2. The costs of resisting the adjournment application were summarily assessed at £11,148.60, including VAT, on the indemnity basis. The application had been made at the last minute on a wholly unjustified basis, having regard to the claimant’s previous reliance on medical reasons for adjournments.
3. The appeal costs were suitable for summary assessment despite their substantial amount. The court considered the history of the litigation and the substantial risk that detailed assessment would be used to generate further wholly unjustifiable and unreasonable challenges. The approach was supported by the claimant’s conduct in the separate Angel Airlines litigation, which had involved extensive court time and numerous judges in costs disputes.
4. The costs in the three schedules, totalling £192,379.84, were reasonable. The extent of the appeal, including 43 grounds and 76 pages of written argument, and the costs of investigating proposed fresh evidence concerning Dr Schoma’s evidence, did not make the claimed costs unreasonable.
5. The appeal costs were ordered on the indemnity basis. The litigation had been wholly abusive and unreasonable, and the final adjournment application was hopeless.
6. The sums were to be paid by 4.00 pm on 4 April 2014. Security paid into court, together with accrued interest, was to be paid out. No stay was justified pending a possible renewed application to the Court of Appeal, having regard to the perceived merits of that application and the identity of the intended recipient.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Following refusal of an adjournment application in a judgment dated 5 February 2014, the claimant withdrew the appeal. The appeal was dismissed and costs were ordered on the indemnity basis.
• Possible further application: The judgment records a possible renewed application to the Court of Appeal against orders of Simon J and Cranston J, but gives no citation or outcome.