Paul Singh v EUI Ltd

Under CPR 44.11, the court may disallow assessed costs or order a party or legal representative to pay costs caused by non-compliance with rules, practice directions or orders, or by unreasonable or improper conduct. The jurisdiction is disciplinary rather than compensatory, and any sanction must be just and proportionate. The court must distinguish responsibility between the party and individual representatives.

Negotiating strategy and rejection of settlement offers will rarely justify sanctions under CPR 44.11 or the wasted-costs jurisdiction. Hindsight should not be used to criticise litigation risk assessments, and advisers’ duties concerning settlement are ordinarily owed to their clients.

The claimant sought recovery of costs following an underlying personal injury and property-damage claim. During detailed assessment, the third defendant applied under CPR 44.11 and CPR 46.8 for a 50% reduction in the claimant’s assessed costs and for costs orders against the claimant and his legal representatives.

The assessment involved two substantially different bills, inadequate certification and supporting vouchers, delay, non-compliance with directions, disorganised documents and disputed solicitor-client billing. Responsibility was considered separately in relation to counsel, a costs draftsman and the solicitors on the record. The central issues were whether the conduct was unreasonable, improper or negligent, whether the statutory and procedural thresholds were met, and what sanction was proportionate.

1. Disposition. The claimant’s assessed costs were reduced by 50% under CPR 44.11(2)(a). Lords Solicitors LLP was held responsible under CPR 46.8 and CPR 44.11(2)(b) for additional costs caused by specified conduct. No penalty was imposed on Ms Wills or Mr Orphanou.
2. Applicable principles. CPR 44.11 is distinct from the wasted-costs jurisdiction under CPR 46.8, although both engage the court’s supervisory jurisdiction over legal representatives. The court must be satisfied that the conduct was unreasonable or improper, retains a discretion whether to sanction, and must impose a proportionate sanction. Wasted costs additionally require a causal connection between the conduct and the costs claimed.
3. Settlement conduct. The rejection or formulation of settlement offers was not a proper basis for sanction. Such decisions involve judgment and risk assessment, and should not be criticised with hindsight. Advisers’ settlement duties are ordinarily owed to the client rather than the court.
4. Individual responsibility. Ms Wills was responsible for some procedural errors, including deficiencies in the presentation and certification of her fees, but her conduct was not improper or unreasonable and a sanction would be disproportionate. Mr Orphanou’s errors amounted at most to poor judgment or weak advocacy, without sufficient basis for a penalty.
5. Lords Solicitors LLP. Lords bore responsibility, with the claimant, for repeated breaches of rules, practice directions and orders. Its unexplained production of multiple versions of a solicitor-client bill, apparent disregard of the indemnity principle, refusal to comply with directions and chaotic document production were improper, unreasonable and negligent. The conduct substantially increased the third defendant’s costs and justified the orders made.

First-instance decision on an application arising from detailed assessment proceedings. The underlying substantive claim had previously proceeded in the County Court and on appeal to the High Court, where a costs order was made on 22 November 2017.