Adams & Ors v Atlas International Property Services Ltd & Ors

Interest on sums awarded to reimburse claimants for payments needed to secure title runs from the date on which the underlying mortgage, fees or associated liabilities were paid, rather than from the date on which funds were placed with agents who continued to hold them. Quantum may be assessed on the balance of probabilities where the evidence establishes the total expenditure and that it was not recovered. A global percentage allocation of costs is not ordinarily revisited for later periods merely because further costs were incurred. An order for payment on account of costs will not be reopened where the potential effect of VAT was an issue already considered when the order was made.

The judgment addressed outstanding consequential matters following the court’s substantive judgment of 5 December 2016. The issues concerned the dates from which interest should run on sums payable to Mr and Mrs Hope and Mr and Mrs Whyte, the recoverable quantum of payments made by those claimants, the percentage allocation of the claimants’ costs, and the amount payable on account of costs.

The court considered late documents and further submissions on quantum, and whether those matters justified revisiting its previous costs decisions.

1. Interest. Interest on the sums awarded to Mr and Mrs Hope and Mr and Mrs Whyte ran from the dates on which the relevant mortgages were repaid or associated fees were paid. Before those dates, the money remained held by the claimants’ agents and had not been used for the relevant expenditure.
2. Mr and Mrs Whyte. Judgment was entered for €54,721.37. The court accepted the agreed figure, while declining to rely on a previously undisclosed document.
3. Mr and Mrs Hope. Judgment was entered for €43,676.41. On the balance of probabilities, the court found that this sum had been paid to the claimants’ Spanish lawyers, had not been returned, and had been spent on sums necessary to secure title, including the items identified in the earlier judgment and other fees or costs.
4. Costs. The existing allocation requiring Sr Aroca to pay 80% of the claimants’ costs was maintained. It was an overall, rough assessment. Dividing the litigation into separate periods and applying different percentages would not be proportionate, particularly since late disclosure and late developments on quantum had already informed the 80% assessment.
5. Payment on account. The order for payment of £240,000 on account of costs was not reopened. The potential effect of VAT had been an issue for consideration when the original order was made.

The judgment records that it followed the court’s substantive judgment of 5 December 2016 in the same proceedings. No appellate decision is stated.