Steven Mlundira v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In detailed assessment-related costs proceedings, the court must consider both the conduct of the parties and whether the costs claimed or incurred were reasonable and proportionate to the issues. A party’s insistence on serving points of dispute may be reasonable where failure to do so creates a risk of a default costs certificate, even if no strike-out order is ultimately made. The court may nevertheless reduce the amount awarded where expenditure on witness statements, bundles and skeleton arguments is disproportionate to a straightforward issue. Enforcement or payment of the costs may be deferred pending resolution of the detailed assessment.

The claimant, acting in person, was involved in costs proceedings concerning defects in his bill and points of dispute. The defendant incurred costs responding to the claimant’s position, including multiple witness statements and other documents. The claimant also made an application which the court considered misconceived.

The Senior Costs Judge assessed the appropriate costs award and later considered the claimant’s request for permission to appeal. The issues were whether the defendant’s conduct in the costs proceedings was reasonable, whether the costs incurred were disproportionate, and whether the application had been reasonable despite the absence of an ultimate strike-out order.

1. The court recognised that the claimant’s status as a litigant in person attracted some sympathy, but the defects in the bill had been identified and the claimant had continued to maintain his claim without engaging adequately with the defendant’s concerns.
2. The defendant was reasonably exposed to the risk of a default costs certificate when the claimant insisted that points of dispute be served. The fact that no strike-out order was ultimately made did not mean that the application was unreasonable. The application was plainly reasonable because of the uncertainty created by that risk.
3. Some work said to have been wasted was not truly wasted because it was used in relation to the points of dispute. Nevertheless, the overall time spent was excessive in relation to an essentially straightforward issue. The use of multiple witness statements, bundles and skeleton arguments contributed to costs which were disproportionate and unreasonable in part.
4. Allowances were made for the fact that the application had been fought more strenuously than might ordinarily have been anticipated. The appropriate award was £1,800 inclusive of everything before the application of the 20 per cent adjustment. Enforcement or payment was deferred until resolution of the costs payable in the detailed assessment proceedings.
5. Permission to appeal was refused. The court concluded that, notwithstanding the absence of a final strike-out order, it had been reasonable to make the relevant application given the threat of a default costs certificate.