Platform Interior Solutions Ltd v ISG Construction Ltd

In assessing costs, comparison with the opposing party’s costs may be informative when considering whether the costs claimed are prima facie excessive. Reasonable specialist assistance may be recoverable as a disbursement where the work would not normally be undertaken by solicitors and the assistance was practically necessary, particularly in adjudication-related proceedings. The court may assess interrelated proceedings together while considering their individual components.

Platform had succeeded against ISG in a Part 7 claim to enforce an adjudication decision and in related Part 8 proceedings in which ISG sought declarations challenging that decision. ISG was ordered to pay Platform’s costs on the standard basis. The present judgment concerned the summary assessment of Platform’s costs in both actions, including in-house time, counsel’s fees, brief fees and charges incurred for a claims consultant.

1. Approach to the assessment. The two actions were procedurally distinct but their work was closely interrelated. The court therefore considered both the component items and the total amount claimed. The comparable level of ISG’s costs suggested that Platform’s costs were not prima facie excessive. A comparison between the parties’ costs could be informative, applying the approach described in Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc [2015] EWHC 566 at [27].
2. In-house time and counsel’s fees. The claimed in-house time was reduced from 271 hours to 205.5 hours, producing a reduction of £1,244.50. The substantial fees for counsel’s drafting, advice, preparation and brief work were allowed because the court considered the extensive involvement justified, proportionate and reasonable.
3. Claims consultant’s fees. Applying the guidance in Octoesse LLP v Trak Special Projects Ltd [2017] 82, the fees were recoverable as a disbursement. The adjudication procedures were unusual, and the court considered that Platform could not satisfactorily present its case without assistance from the person who had handled the adjudication. The charges were high but were allowed, subject to the stated reduction.
4. Platform’s recoverable costs were assessed at £52,041.60 in the Part 7 claim and £17,688 in the Part 8 claim.