RG Securities (No.2) Ltd v (Allianz Global Corporate And Specialty CE & Ors

Summary assessment of costs is a global assessment, rather than an item-by-item detailed assessment. The court must allow costs that are proportionate and reasonably incurred and proportionate and reasonable in amount. The unsuccessful party will ordinarily pay the successful party’s costs, including the costs of issuing an unsuccessful application, unless there is a good reason to depart from that rule. Costs comparisons must compare like with like, including all components of counsel’s fees.

The claimant succeeded in resisting the third defendant’s application for summary judgment, which principally alleged that the claim was statute barred. The substantive application was dismissed in [2020] EWHC 1646 (TCC). The parties could not agree the consequential costs order, so the court determined costs on written submissions.

The issues were whether the third defendant should receive any costs because the limitation issue had been pleaded in the Reply, whether the claimant’s costs were proportionate and reasonable, and whether the claimant’s brief fee was excessive when compared with the third defendant’s counsel’s fee.

1. Summary assessment. The court emphasised that summary assessment is a global assessment and not an item-by-item detailed assessment. The assessed figure is not intended to provide full indemnity. The court may make a global reduction while considering specific issues where appropriate.
2. Proportionality and reasonableness. Under CPR Part 44.4(1)(a), costs must be proportionate and reasonably incurred, and proportionate and reasonable in amount. Counting the pages of exhibits was not a useful measure of the proper level of costs, particularly for a reasonably complex application resulting in a reserved judgment.
3. Limitation pleading. Limitation operates as a procedural bar rather than extinguishing the claim. It is therefore raised in a defence. Where the defence raises matters relevant to deliberate concealment, the proper place to answer them is ordinarily the Reply. The fact that those matters were not pleaded in the Particulars of Claim did not justify the defendant’s continued unsuccessful application.
4. Costs liability. The general rule under CPR Part 44.2(2)(a) is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs. There was no reason to displace that rule or to treat the costs of issuing the failed application differently, because the application was continued and fully argued.
5. Counsel’s fees. The comparison advanced by the defendant was invalid because it compared the claimant’s complete brief fee with only one component of the defendant’s counsel’s fees. The proper comparison was £8,000 with the defendant’s total counsel’s fees of £9,810. The claimant’s fee was reasonable and proportionate.
6. The claimant was awarded £20,000 exclusive of VAT by way of summary assessment, payable within 14 days.

The judgment records that the third defendant’s summary judgment application had been dismissed and judgment given for the claimant in [2020] EWHC 1646 (TCC). This judgment determined the consequential costs issue.