Ballard v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

[2018] EWHC 527 (QB)

Case details

Case citations
[2018] EWHC 527 (QB)
Court
High Court (Queen's Bench Division)
Judgment date
15 March 2018
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Civil procedure Costs Interim payment on account of costs
Keywords
costs interim payment on account standard basis costs assessment costs budget costs of hearing
Outcome
application granted
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Where a party is entitled to costs, the court may order an interim payment on account by making a provisional assessment of the likely recoverable costs. The court may take account of the costs budget, costs incurred to date, the amount at stake, apparent excess in the costs claimed, and any costs payable by the successful party to the opponent. A dispute about an ancillary issue, such as interest, does not justify reducing costs of a hearing whose substantive focus was costs.

Factual background

The claimant, described as the appellant, succeeded on an appeal and was entitled to the costs of that appeal. The respondent also accepted liability for the claimant’s costs of an earlier hearing before Judge Simpkiss, but argued that only half of the preparation costs should be recoverable because the parties had resolved interest calculations shortly before the hearing.

The claimant sought an interim payment of £70,000 on account of costs. The respondent proposed approximately £26,500. The court determined the appropriate amount and the time for payment.

Held

  1. The claimant was entitled to the costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
  2. The claimant was also entitled to the costs of the hearing before Judge Simpkiss. The substantive issue before that judge was costs, and the unresolved interest issue did not justify depriving the claimant of any part of her costs.
  3. In assessing an interim payment on account, the court adopted a provisional figure between the claimant’s costs budget of approximately £61,000 and costs incurred to the joint settlement meeting of approximately £110,000, producing £85,500. The court deducted approximately £10,000 for the respondent’s trial costs, leaving £75,500.
  4. Two-thirds of that sum, rounded down, was an appropriate interim payment. The claimant was awarded £50,000 on account of costs.
  5. Payment was ordered within 14 days of the order giving effect to the decision being sealed.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

The judgment records that the claimant had succeeded on an appeal and was entitled to the appeal costs. The citation of the judgment under appeal is not stated.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.