Manolete Partners Plc v Ian Russell White

The court will not ordinarily reopen a judgment to admit evidence supplied after the hearing, particularly where the evidence could have been filed earlier and reopening would prejudice the other party.

In deciding costs, the court should consider the extent to which unsuccessful issues caused additional costs, rather than applying an automatic discount because the successful party did not obtain every aspect of its claim. On summary assessment, reasonableness and proportionality require consideration of both hourly rates and the total time and costs incurred.

Manolete Partners Plc obtained relief against Ian Russell White in an insolvency application concerning enforcement of a judgment debt arising from misfeasance proceedings involving Lloyds British Testing Limited. The substantive judgment, dated 25 August 2022, was followed by an order requiring Mr White to access his occupational pension in order to assist in satisfying the debt.

At hand-down of the enforcement judgment, Mr White sought to introduce three documents sent shortly beforehand and to reopen the judgment. The court also determined the costs of the application and summarily assessed them. The issues were whether the further evidence should be admitted, whether the applicant’s costs should be discounted, and what costs were reasonable and proportionate.

1. Late evidence. The court refused to admit three documents sent shortly before hand-down or to reopen the judgment. The evidence could have been placed before the court earlier, the parties had been subject to several case-management orders, and reopening the judgment would have been unfair to the applicant. The judgment was therefore handed down in its approved form.
2. Costs. The applicant was the successful party and was entitled to its costs. The fact that it had abandoned some relief, failed on another aspect, and changed the form of the relief sought did not justify a discount. The relevant question was whether the lack of success on those issues had materially caused additional costs. On the evidence, it had not.
3. Reasonableness and proportionality. Summary assessment requires consideration of the overall charges, including both hourly rates and the time spent. Although the applicant’s solicitors’ rates were substantially above the guideline rates, their total charges were lower than the respondent’s solicitors’ charges and were reasonable and proportionate. The solicitors’ costs were allowed in full.
4. The total counsel fees claimed were unreasonable and disproportionate for a short, one-day application involving limited issues, no live evidence and modest bundles. Counsel’s fees were therefore allowed in the aggregate sum of £20,000, together with solicitors’ costs of £16,628.50 and court costs of £218, making a total of £36,846.50.

• High Court: The substantive insolvency judgment was delivered on 25 August 2022. A subsequent enforcement judgment was identified as [2023] EWHC 567 (Ch). In the present ruling, the court refused to reopen that judgment, awarded the applicant its costs, and summarily assessed them.