Hon Shu Pang & Anor v Justin Zinda

A litigant in person may recover compensation for time reasonably spent on appeal work only to the extent that the work was reasonably necessary. Loss of earnings from giving up employment to prepare an appeal will be refused where the work could reasonably have been done outside working hours. Excessive, repetitive or irrelevant preparation and disbursements are not recoverable. Where the schedules are unreliable, the court may adopt a broad-brush assessment, while allowing a reasonable amount with an appropriate margin of generosity.

The judgment concerned the summary assessment of the appellant’s costs after an earlier order allowed his appeals to a limited extent and awarded him 40% of his appeal costs. The appellant, acting in person, claimed substantial loss of earnings, preparation time, hearing attendance costs and disbursements.

The court, sitting with the Senior Costs Judge as assessor, considered the effect of the costs orders, the recoverability of costs claimed by a litigant in person, and whether the claimed preparation and expenditure were reasonable and necessary.

1. Costs order of 19 July 2022. Because that order neither granted permission to appeal nor mentioned costs, CPR 44.10 meant that the general rule applied: no party was entitled to costs. The later order of 22 February 2023 did not alter that position.
2. Loss of earnings. Under CPR 46.5(4), a litigant in person may recover proven financial loss for time reasonably spent on the work, or, where financial loss is not proved, time reasonably spent at the prescribed rate. The appellant’s decision to resign from employment to prepare for the appeal was unnecessary and unreasonable. The work could have been done outside working hours, so the principal claim for loss of earnings was refused.
3. Preparation time. The schedules showed excessive, unnecessary and repetitive work, including extensive bundle preparation and repeated reading of material from the underlying action. The court adopted a broad-brush approach and, erring on the side of generosity, allowed 50 hours for each of two hearings and 40 hours for cases read. At £19 per hour, preparation costs were £2,660.
4. Attendance and disbursements. Reasonable hearing attendance costs, printing, travel, a court fee and preparation of the statement of costs were allowed in reduced or full amounts. Transcripts relating to the underlying action were unnecessary for the costs appeals, and the cost of a transcript obtained for a separate appeal was irrecoverable.
5. The total costs on a 100% basis were assessed at £4,500 after rounding. Applying the earlier 40% order, the appellant was awarded £1,800.

1. High Court (King’s Bench Division): By order dated 22 February 2023, the appellant’s appeals were allowed to the limited extent of directing an oral hearing before the Senior Costs Judge concerning specified costs assessed provisionally, with the respondents ordered to pay 40% of the appellant’s appeal costs.
2. High Court (King’s Bench Division): The present judgment assessed those costs and awarded £1,800 on the 40% basis.