Jaevee Homes Limited v Steve Fincham (trading as Fincham Demolition)

Costs ordinarily follow the event, but the court may make a different order where the successful party lost a significant issue which caused the unsuccessful party to incur material costs. A partial reduction in the substantive liability may justify a proportionate reduction in costs, even where one party remains the overall winner. Costs of an unsuccessful stay application ordinarily fall on the applicant. Indemnity costs require conduct justifying departure from the standard basis. The court may specify an earlier or later payment date where justice requires, including to ensure that compliance with the order is known to a court dealing with related insolvency proceedings.

The judgment concerned consequential costs following the court’s earlier determination of the claimant’s Part 8 claim. The defendant had succeeded on the contractual issue and on three of four invoices, but one invoice was held invalid, reducing the amount payable under the adjudication enforcement order.

The court also determined the costs of the claimant’s unsuccessful application for a three-month stay. The parties disputed whether those costs should be reserved, whether the defendant should receive all or only a proportion of the costs of the proceedings, the appropriate basis of assessment, and the time for payment.

1. Stay application. The claimant’s application for a three-month stay had been refused by Waksman J. The claimant did not pursue before the court the alleged assignment or the contention that the matter could not proceed under Part 8. The application had failed, and there was no basis for departing from the starting point under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 44.2 that the unsuccessful party should pay the successful party’s costs. The claimant was ordered to pay £6,881.
2. Basis and amount of assessment. The defendant had not shown conduct warranting indemnity costs. The costs of the stay application were therefore assessed on the standard basis. The court accepted that specialist solicitors could reasonably be instructed notwithstanding hourly rates above local guideline rates, and found the time spent reasonable.
3. Costs of the proceedings. The defendant was the overall successful party. However, the claimant had succeeded on a significant issue concerning one invoice, and that issue had caused the claimant to incur costs which would otherwise not have been incurred. Applying the discretion under r 44.2, the court reduced the defendant’s recoverable costs by 15 per cent. Costs were assessed at £48,145 on a 100 per cent basis, with the claimant ordered to pay 85 per cent, namely £40,923.25.
4. Time to pay. Although r 44.7 ordinarily requires payment within 14 days after the amount is determined, the court ordered payment by Monday 5 May 2025. The claimant had advanced no grounds suggesting difficulty in paying, and it was appropriate that the judge hearing the winding-up application should know whether the order had been honoured. Permission was given for the judgment to be disclosed to that judge before formal hand-down.

First-instance consequential costs judgment following the court’s earlier judgment on the claimant’s Part 8 claim. No appellate history was stated.