Shell UK Ltd & Anor v Greenpeace UK Ltd & Ors

Where a party’s pleading is non-compliant, the successful party will ordinarily receive its costs. The court may, however, adjust the award to reflect the case-management value of the hearing and shortcomings in the successful party’s own costs claim. Relevant considerations include whether the hearing was necessary, whether an offer materially resolved the dispute, the adequacy of the documents schedule, and whether time claimed by fee earners was reasonable.

The claimants challenged the length and compliance of the defendants’ pleading. Mr Justice Andrew Baker had expressed concern about the pleading, and the matter proceeded to a hearing at which Mrs Justice Cockerill determined that it was non-compliant. The hearing also addressed the structure of the case, anticipated evidential issues and the appropriate use of schedule 1.

The issue was the appropriate order for the costs of that hearing.

1. Outcome. The claimants had effectively succeeded because the defendants’ pleading was non-compliant. Costs were therefore awarded broadly in the claimants’ favour.
2. The hearing had also served a useful case-management function. The parties had clarified the way in which the case would be advanced, the likely evidential issues and the proper use of schedule 1. That factor justified reducing the amount otherwise claimed.
3. The hearing was necessary. The defendants remained committed to their pleading, and the pleading was reduced only following the judge’s determination to address its length. An intermediate offer had not achieved resolution.
4. The amount awarded was reduced to reflect a good objection concerning the documents schedule, the excessive claim for 10 hours spent approving a bundle, and the general case-management element. The claimants were awarded £17,500.