Ibukun Adebowale Adegboyega v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interest on general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities is ordinarily payable at 2% from service of the proceedings to judgment. The same approach applies to general damages for trespass to the person. Interest may run from the date on which a claim is pleaded, rather than from a later amendment or permission order. Exemplary damages, being punitive rather than compensatory, do not attract pre-judgment interest. An award under Article 3 of the ECHR does not attract pre-judgment interest without a legal or evidential basis. Costs depend on the successful party and the overall conduct of the litigation. Indemnity costs are justified where conduct is high-handed, oppressive, untrue or misleading and takes the case outside the norm. Wasted costs may be ordered against solicitors where negligent conduct causes unnecessary costs.

This was a consequential hearing following an earlier judgment awarding the claimant damages for unlawful detention, breach of EEA rights, trespass to the person, psychiatric injury and related losses. The court determined the periods and rates of interest, the proportion and basis of the claimant’s costs, a payment on account of costs, liability of the claimant’s solicitors for costs wasted at a prior hearing, and whether permission to appeal an order made by Christopher Kennedy KC could be heard by the present court.

The central issues were whether interest was recoverable on the different heads of damages, whether the claimant was the successful party, whether the defendant’s conduct justified indemnity costs, and whether the claimant’s solicitors had acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently so as to cause wasted costs.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the judgment sum of £146,495.24 by 4pm on 11 February 2025, with judgment interest at 8% from 29 September 2024 until payment. The defendant was also ordered to pay pre-judgment interest totalling £9,648.95.

1. Interest on general damages for personal injury and trespass to the person was payable at 2% from service of the Particulars of Claim on 10 May 2018 to judgment. The later order permitting additional claims did not alter the date because the claims had already been pleaded.
2. Interest was refused on the £4,000 CBT award because the treatment had been valued as at 12 June 2024 and had not yet been received. It was also refused on the Article 3 ECHR award because no authority had established entitlement to pre-judgment interest. Szafranski v Poland concerned default interest after the Strasbourg judgment became final and did not decide pre-judgment interest.
3. Interest on basic and aggravated damages for wrongful detention was payable at 2% from 10 October 2017, when the amended judicial review grounds claimed damages for wrongful detention. In applying Rees v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the court noted that the trial award had reflected inflation but had not expressly reflected the delay in receiving compensation. The court therefore accepted the defendant’s alternative interest calculation.
4. No pre-judgment interest was payable on exemplary damages for wrongful detention or breach of EEA rights because such damages are punitive, not compensatory.
5. The claimant was the successful party and received 100% of the costs. The defendant’s complaints about procedural breaches, late evidence and exaggerated evidence had either already been dealt with or did not justify a reduction. The defendant’s high-handed and oppressive conduct, including untrue and misleading representations and prolonged resistance to liability, took the case outside the norm and justified indemnity costs.
6. Applying the three-stage test in Ridehalgh v Horsefield, the claimant’s solicitors had been negligent in failing to tell the court and defendant before the 1 February 2023 hearing that the previous solicitors’ costs could not be summarily assessed. That negligence caused 75% of the hearing costs to be wasted, and the solicitors were ordered to pay that proportion on the standard basis.
7. Permission to appeal the order of Christopher Kennedy KC could not be heard because an appeal from a High Court Judge had to be made to the Court of Appeal.

The defendant was ordered to make a payment on account of costs of £116,500.

The judgment describes earlier procedural stages in the same litigation, including orders permitting additional claims and the earlier liability and damages judgment. It was not itself an appeal.

• High Court: Christopher Kennedy KC, sitting as a High Court Judge, refused the claimant’s application to amend his schedule of loss on 12 June 2024.
• High Court (King's Bench Division): HHJ Richard Roberts determined interest, costs, payment on account and wasted-cost issues, and held that permission to appeal the order of Christopher Kennedy KC had to be sought from the Court of Appeal.