Personal Management Solutions Ltd & Anor v GEE 7 Group Ltd & Anor

Where each side has succeeded on one aspect of an appeal, costs should ordinarily follow the event in relation to each successful or unsuccessful matter. On summary assessment, the court may take a broad view of the reasonable and proportionate costs where a mathematical allocation would not produce a better result. An appropriate set-off may then be made between the parties’ costs liabilities.

The court was asked to determine costs following an unsuccessful appeal by the appellants against a deputy master’s order. The respondents had also failed to obtain permission to bring a cross-appeal. The parties agreed that the costs should be summarily assessed at the hearing. The issues were the appropriate proportion of the respondents’ costs attributable to the unsuccessful cross-appeal and the corresponding set-off due to the appellants.

1. The appellants had failed in their appeal, while the respondents had failed in their application for permission to bring a cross-appeal.
2. Costs should follow the event. The appellants were therefore liable for the respondents’ costs of defending the unsuccessful appeal, and the respondents were liable for the appellants’ costs of resisting the unsuccessful cross-appeal.
3. The parties had agreed to summary assessment rather than detailed assessment. The respondents’ schedule totalled approximately £23,856 including VAT, but the court considered that £20,000 was the reasonable and proportionate overall figure for dealing with the matter.
4. A broad assessment was appropriate because a mathematical or scientific allocation of costs would not provide a better answer. Ten per cent of the respondents’ costs, namely £2,000, was attributed to the unsuccessful cross-appeal. The respondents’ appeal costs were therefore assessed at £18,000, against which the appellants’ entitlement of £2,000 was set off.
5. The net sum payable by the appellants to the respondents was £16,000.

The judgment records that the appellants had failed in an appeal against an order of a deputy master and that the respondents had failed to obtain permission to bring a cross-appeal. No citation for the deputy master’s order is stated.