Joseph v Deloitte NSE LLP

A successful party is ordinarily entitled to its costs, but the court must choose between summary and detailed assessment by reference to whether there is a good reason for detailed assessment. A substantial dispute about the reasonableness and proportionality of costs is such a reason. A payment on account must reflect the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the trial, the parties’ costs, the issues raised and the court’s preliminary view of reasonable and proportionate costs. A costs cap cannot be adopted by treating a materially different case as comparable.

The court had previously given judgment for Deloitte NSE LLP and was asked to determine consequential costs issues. Deloitte sought its costs, summary assessment and, alternatively, a payment on account. Joseph accepted that a costs order should be made but disputed the quantum and opposed summary assessment. The issues were whether the costs should be summarily or subject to detailed assessment and the appropriate interim payment.

1. Entitlement and assessment. Deloitte, as the successful party, was entitled to its costs under CPR 44.2(2)(a). The court was not able to determine summarily what proportion of the claimed costs was reasonable and proportionate. The trial had lasted one day, concerned a narrow claim and involved relatively few relevant documents and witness statements, although substantial preparation had been required under time pressure.
2. Detailed assessment. The live dispute about the quantum of costs, together with Joseph’s specific arguments, constituted a good reason for detailed assessment under CPR 44 PD paragraph 9.1. The costs were therefore payable on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment.
3. Payment on account. Under CPR 44.2(8), the court awarded £125,000 on account. The amount was assessed by bearing in mind the level of each side’s costs, the competing submissions on quantum, the arguments and issues at trial, and the court’s preliminary view of reasonable and proportionate costs. The proposed cap based on Vitol Bahrain EC v Nasdec General Trading LLC 2012 Folio 1474 was rejected as the present case concerned a substantive claim at trial and was markedly different.

not stated in the judgment.