Imtech Inviron Ltd v Loppingdale Plant Ltd

Costs incurred in enforcing an adjudicator’s award must be assessed by reference to reasonableness and proportionality. The court should consider the nature and content of the work, rather than rely on arbitrary time limits or document length. Costs associated with preparing the application and hearing bundles properly explain why a claimant’s costs may exceed those of a defendant. Where the work, fees and overall costs are reasonable, necessary and proportionate, the court may assess the claimed sum on the standard basis.

The judgment concerned the costs of the claimant’s successful application for summary judgment enforcing an adjudicator’s award. In an earlier judgment, Imtech Inviron Limited v Loppingdale Plant Limited, [2014] EWHC 4006 (TCC), the court had granted summary judgment to the claimant.

The defendant challenged the claimant’s costs, principally by disputing the time spent on documents, other work and counsel’s fees. The court considered whether the claimed costs were reasonable, necessary and proportionate, and determined the amount recoverable.

1. The court assessed the claimant’s costs on the standard basis at £16,251.
2. Challenges based on arbitrary estimates of the time required to review documents were rejected. The relevant consideration is the content and complexity of the material, not merely its length.
3. The time spent by a partner reviewing and amending draft proceedings was reasonable. Such review may properly involve modifications and improvements and does not imply that the junior solicitor’s work was defective.
4. The claimant’s additional work in preparing the application, court bundles and hearing materials explained why its costs could exceed the defendant’s costs. The claimant’s costs were approximately 2.5 per cent of the amount at stake, which supported the conclusion that they were proportionate.
5. The time claimed for other work, including telephone attendances, was not shown to be unreasonable or disproportionate. The alternative figures advanced by the defendant were arbitrary.
6. Although the claimant’s counsel’s fees were substantially higher than the defendant’s, they were consistent with typical fees for this type of application. The legal issues justified the use of specialist junior counsel, and the fees were reasonable, necessary and proportionate.

This was a first-instance costs judgment. The court recorded that its earlier judgment, [2014] EWHC 4006 (TCC), had granted the claimant summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator’s award.