Harrington Scott Limited v Coupe Bradbury Solicitors Limited

Costs generally follow the event, and failure on individual issues does not alone justify depriving a successful party of its costs. A reduction may be ordered where objectively distinct issues caused additional costs or the application was unreasonably diffuse. Indemnity costs are justified where conduct is outside the norm for litigation of the kind. In the absence of costs budgeting, an interim payment of about two-thirds of the likely recoverable costs is an appropriate general guide.

The judgment concerned consequential matters following the court’s substantive judgment in the claim, reported as [2022] EWHC 2275 (Ch). The claim had been dismissed and the particulars of claim struck out after the defendant succeeded on most issues in its summary judgment and strike-out application.

The parties agreed that the defendant was the successful party and that costs should follow the event. They disputed the extent and basis of recovery, the treatment of costs wasted by an adjourned hearing, the amount of an interim payment, and permission to appeal.

1. Disposition. The claim remained dismissed and the particulars of claim struck out. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, with the application costs subject to the reductions described below. Permission to appeal was refused because none of the proposed grounds had a real prospect of success.
2. Issue-based reduction. A successful party is not ordinarily deprived of costs merely because it failed on some issues. The court must identify an objective ground, apart from failure itself, which justifies separate treatment. Here, the application had been advanced on too many discrete grounds. Several unsuccessful issues were distinct, parasitic on issues already resolved, or unsuitable for determination on the application. The defendant was therefore awarded two-thirds of the costs of the summary judgment and strike-out application up to 5 September 2022. Costs thrown away by the December 2021 adjournment were excluded.
3. Indemnity basis. The touchstone was whether the claimant’s conduct or the circumstances of the case were outside the norm for litigation of this kind. The deliberate exaggeration of the claim, dishonest conduct, reliance on false evidence and late concessions satisfied that test. Costs of the claim and application were therefore to be assessed on the indemnity basis.
4. Interim payment. Percentages in earlier cases were not binding, but the general tenor of the authorities supported an award of about two-thirds where costs had not been budgeted. The court ordered an interim payment calculated on that basis, subject to the exclusion and reductions specified in the order.

• High Court (Business List): The substantive claim was dismissed and the particulars of claim struck out in [2022] EWHC 2275 (Ch). This judgment determined consequential costs, interim payment and permission to appeal.