The Russian Aircraft Litigation – Operator Policy Claims, Re

Where amendments to claim forms are agreed without opposition, the court may order the costs of the amendment application to be costs in the case. In complex, multi-party litigation, innocent mistakes and the need to regularise party descriptions may be expected. The fact that one party’s information contributed to the mistake does not necessarily justify an immediate costs order, particularly where the amendment was promptly agreed and the dispute is peripheral to the main litigation. The proportionality and necessity of supporting evidence may also be relevant to any costs assessment.

At the first case management conference in these proceedings, the court dealt with a discrete application concerning amendments to four claim forms. The amendments corrected descriptions of parties. The defendants did not oppose the amendments and had agreed to them promptly after being approached.

The relevant claimants nevertheless sought an order that the Shoosmith defendants pay the costs of the applications. The claimants relied on alleged incorrect information provided before issue. The defendants disputed responsibility and argued that the detailed evidence supporting the costs application was unnecessary. The issue was the appropriate costs order.

1. Costs order refused. The appropriate order was costs in the case. The amendments had been agreed and the litigation was large-scale and complex, in which innocent mistakes by either side could be expected.
2. The claimants had acted sensibly by regularising the position once the error became apparent. That circumstance did not, however, make it appropriate to impose the amendment costs on the defendants.
3. The court also considered the proportionality of the supporting evidence. Although the witness statement was carefully prepared and its detail was not criticised, much of that detail appeared to have been directed to supporting the costs claim rather than obtaining agreement to the amendments.
4. Had a costs order been made against the defendants, it would have been for a substantially lower amount than the approximately £35,000 claimed.

This was a first-instance ruling at the first case management conference. The judgment does not state any appeal or prior decision citation.