Pinewood Technologies Asia Pacific Limited v Pinewood Technologies Plc

[2024] EWHC 802 (TCC)

Case details

Case citations
[2024] EWHC 802 (TCC)
Court
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Judgment date
12 April 2024
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Civil procedure Costs Interlocutory applications
Keywords
costs follow the event substantial success unless order detailed assessment standard basis interim payment on account summary assessment
Outcome
judgment for the defendant on costs
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

In determining costs of interlocutory applications, the court assesses which party was substantially successful and applies the usual principle that costs follow the event, subject to the relief actually granted and the circumstances of the case. A party obtaining the principal order may therefore recover most of its costs even where the opposing party receives limited procedural relief. Where the receiving party’s costs schedule is exceptionally high and unsuitable for summary assessment, the costs may be referred for detailed assessment on the standard basis, with an interim payment ordered on account.

Factual background

The judgment concerned the costs of two applications. The defendant had obtained an order that the claimant’s claim would be struck out unless the claimant paid the judgment debt, although the court extended the time for payment to 1 June 2024. The claimant sought an equal sharing of costs or that costs be reserved to the trial judge, arguing that the result was a score draw. The defendant sought its costs as the substantially successful party.

Held

  1. Costs outcome. The defendant was substantially the winning party because it obtained the unless order sought, albeit on modified terms. The claimant’s explanations for failing to pay sums ordered by the court had been rejected. The extension of time granted to the claimant was materially less than the extension sought.
  2. The claimant was therefore ordered to pay 90% of the defendant’s costs of the two applications. The limited relief granted to the claimant did not justify an equal division of costs or reserving costs to the trial judge.
  3. The defendant’s costs schedule claimed £93,743 net of VAT. The court considered that figure surprising and so substantial that it could not properly form the basis of summary assessment. The recoverable costs were accordingly directed to detailed assessment on the standard basis by a costs judge.
  4. An interim payment was appropriate. The claimant was ordered to pay £45,000, being 90% of £50,000, on account of the costs order within 28 days.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.