Motorola v Hytera

In assessing costs arising from an amended summary judgment application, the court may take account of the parties’ conduct, the proportionality of the work undertaken, and whether claimed work duplicates costs already dealt with. Work which could reasonably have been avoided through earlier engagement or clarification may be substantially reduced. The court may award a realistic figure representing the costs that should reasonably have been incurred.

The court was asked to determine the costs arising from an amendment to a summary judgment application. The dispute concerned the amount properly recoverable in circumstances where the application had been launched without sufficient engagement, followed by a response and amendment. The court considered the work claimed, including document review, Part 18 requests, senior counsel involvement and hourly rates.

1. The court took a dim view of the way the summary judgment process had proceeded, including the initial launch without adequate engagement and the subsequent response which led to amendment.
2. The fact that substantial work had been undertaken did not justify recovery of the claimed amount. Matters which could have been clarified more simply and at substantially lower cost were taken into account.
3. The court also excluded or criticised costs which properly fell within the substantive summary judgment costs already disallowed.
4. The claimed work included 22.7 hours on documents, involvement of two silks and hourly rates above the Guideline rate. The explanations advanced for the higher rates were rejected.
5. The court allowed £5,000 for the costs, describing that figure as approximately what should have been incurred.