Scenic International Group Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Richard Adenaike & Ors

For a routine interim application, costs should ordinarily be summarily assessed when they are ordered. A party cannot justify detailed assessment merely because it does not wish to incur the modest cost of preparing a schedule. The court must assess proportionality and reasonableness, including the hourly rates charged, the work undertaken and applicable guideline rates. Failure to serve a costs schedule within the required period is a further matter to be taken into account, particularly where the opposing party is unrepresented and loses the opportunity for effective scrutiny. The court may therefore make a broad-brush summary assessment and substantially reduce disproportionate costs.

The claimant applied for post-judgment continuation of freezing orders against several defendants. The application was substantially granted, and the relevant defendants were ordered to pay the claimant’s costs.

The claimant had not prepared a costs schedule for summary assessment and instead sought detailed assessment. The court refused that course, directed the claimant to file a schedule, and proceeded to assess the costs on the papers. The issues were whether summary or detailed assessment was appropriate, and what amount was reasonable and proportionate in light of the work, rates and late service of the schedule.

1. Summary assessment. For a relatively routine freezing-order application in the Interim Applications list, the ordinary course where costs are ordered is summary assessment under Practice Direction 44, paragraph 9.2(b). Summary assessment is efficient because the hearing judge is familiar with the application. Detailed assessment was inappropriate where the claimant merely wished to avoid the modest expense of preparing a schedule.
2. Proportionality and rates. The continuation of existing freezing orders after default judgments was not particularly complex. Costs exceeding £36,000 were therefore disproportionate and unreasonable. Hourly rates above the 2024 guideline rates did not justify an uplift, applying Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v LG Display Co Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 466. The schedule also appeared inaccurate because work attributed to less senior fee earners appeared to have been performed and charged at senior rates.
3. Late schedule. Paragraph 9.5 of Practice Direction 44 required the schedule to be filed and served at least 24 hours before the hearing. There was no reasonable excuse for non-compliance. Under paragraph 9.6, the failure was taken into account, particularly because the defendants were unrepresented and the claimant could foresee that assistance available at the hearing would not be available when the schedule was later scrutinised.
4. The court assessed solicitors’ costs at £12,000, counsel’s fees at £10,960 and the court fee at £275, making a total of £23,235.