Christine Margaret Chapman v Clarence Court Eggs Limited

Costs ordinarily follow the event, but the successful party may receive less than full recovery where issues were abandoned or narrowed too late. The court should encourage the abandonment of weak points, particularly on summary judgment, while recognising that parties must abandon points in a timely manner. A payment on account should be calibrated at the maximum amount likely to be recovered on detailed assessment. The court should balance the need to reimburse the receiving party promptly against the risk of requiring excessive interim payment.

The claimant applied for costs following a successful summary judgment application which had brought the proceedings to an end, subject to one remaining point not detailed in the judgment. Both parties accepted that costs should ordinarily follow the event. The dispute concerned the extent of any reduction because points had been raised in pleadings, correspondence or skeleton arguments but were not pursued orally.

The claimant also sought payment on account of costs. The court therefore had to determine the appropriate reduction in recoverable costs and the amount that could safely be ordered before detailed assessment.

1. Costs order. The claimant was entitled to an order for costs because she had succeeded on the summary judgment application. Costs ordinarily followed the event, but the recoverable costs had to reflect the late narrowing of the issues.

2. The court encouraged the slimming down of points in a difficult summary judgment application. However, points that were no longer pursued should be abandoned in a timely manner. The claimant’s conspiracy claim had been abandoned by a properly notified application, whereas the defendant’s summary judgment case was substantially reshaped during oral argument. That difference supported a reduction in recovery.

3. A discount of 50 per cent was excessive. The appropriate order was that the claimant recover 75 per cent of the assessed costs of the summary judgment application.

4. Payment on account. The court had to fix an amount that represented the maximum sum it considered would inevitably be recovered on detailed assessment. This required prompt payment to the claimant, while keeping as narrow as possible the gap between the interim payment and the sum ultimately assessed, particularly because interest would accrue on unpaid costs.

5. Taking account of the parties’ substantial costs, the complexity and hard-fought nature of the proceedings, the summary judgment reduction and the court’s concern that detailed assessment would significantly reduce the figures, the appropriate payment on account was £90,000.