Barclays Bank Plc (t/a Barclays Global Payment Acceptance) v The Registrar of Companies & Ors

Where inter-related applications are determined together, the court may treat them as a single application for costs purposes while identifying separately the costs attributable to each issue. Under CPR 44.2, the general rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs remains subject to all the circumstances. A costs order may therefore exclude costs that would have been incurred irrespective of the unsuccessful party’s participation. The court may also order payment of a stated amount under CPR 44.2(6)(b).

The court dealt with costs following an application by the third respondent, Mrs Sharma, to rescind an order restoring Client Connection Ltd to the register for the purpose of winding it up. The petitioner had sought the restoration to facilitate investigations into the company’s dealings and the prosecution of claims under the Insolvency Act 1986. The petitioner also sought to backdate presentation of the petition, but that application was only partially granted.

Mrs Sharma failed in her rescission application and opposed part of the relief sought by the petitioner. The issue was the appropriate allocation and quantification of costs.

1. The petitioner was overall the successful party. Under the general rule in CPR 44.2(2)(a), Mrs Sharma would ordinarily pay the petitioner’s costs of the failed rescission application and of the relief opposed by her.

2. The rescission application and the adjourned petition were inter-related. The evidence deployed on each was essentially the same. It was therefore appropriate to treat them as a single application for costs purposes, while considering separately which costs should be ordered.

3. Applying CPR 44.2(4), the court had regard to all the circumstances. Mrs Sharma was ordered to pay only the costs fairly attributable to the petitioner’s response to her rescission application and to her particular opposition to the relief sought. She was not liable for costs that would have been incurred even if she had not appeared.

4. Under CPR 44.2(6)(b), the court could make an order for a stated amount. From the petitioner’s total costs of £9,218 plus VAT, Mrs Sharma was ordered to pay £3,875 plus VAT by 4.00pm on 16 November 2015. The balance was to be treated as petitioners’ costs of the petition and paid as an expense of the liquidation.