Illiquidx Limited v Altana Wealth Limited & Ors

Costs arising from a discrete liability trial should ordinarily be determined when that trial concludes, rather than reserved until the outcome of a later quantum trial. The court may take exaggerated claims and defective or expansive pleadings into account when exercising its costs discretion. Such conduct may justify a substantial reduction in the successful claimant’s recoverable costs, while leaving the general rule that costs follow the event intact. Costs should be assessed on a broad-brush basis where the court can identify significant unnecessary expenditure but cannot calculate it precisely.

The claimant had succeeded at trial in establishing breach of confidence, misuse of trade secrets and breach of contract against the first and fourth defendants. Its copyright claim and claim against the third defendant had failed. The court had already determined liability in Illiquidx Ltd v Altana Wealth Ltd [2025] EWHC 299 (Ch) and was required to determine the consequential costs of the liability trial.

The defendants sought to reserve costs until the quantum trial and argued that the claimant’s case had been exaggerated and conducted in an unnecessarily vague and expansive manner. The issues were whether costs should be reserved, what deduction should be made for unsuccessful issues and conduct, and what interim payment should be ordered.

1. Costs of the liability trial. Costs of a discrete trial should generally follow the outcome of that issue and should not await the final resolution of the proceedings. This approach promotes proportionate litigation and encourages parties to take points selectively. The court therefore declined to reserve costs until the quantum trial.
2. Offers and exaggeration. A global Part 36 offer could have provided protection against the costs consequences of losing on liability where the defendants considered the claim greatly exaggerated. A without-prejudice save as to costs offer was not an admissible offer for the purposes of CPR 44.2(4)(c) unless put before the court. The defendants had not waived privilege or produced the relevant correspondence, and the court was not satisfied that such an offer justified reserving costs.
3. Conduct and pleadings. The claimant’s vague, expansive and imprecise pleadings materially increased the costs of pleadings, disclosure, evidence, trial preparation, cross-examination and correspondence. They also created unfairness by failing adequately to identify the case to be met and were inconsistent with the overriding objective. Nevertheless, the claimant succeeded on a case which was available on its pleadings, and the defendants had unsuccessfully advanced a false factual case. The general rule that the unsuccessful parties should pay the successful party’s costs was therefore retained, subject to a substantial deduction.
4. Order. The first and fourth defendants, with the second defendant accepting liability for the first defendant’s liabilities, were ordered to pay 50% of the claimant’s assessed costs on the standard basis. Interest was awarded at 2% above base rate from payment to the claimant’s solicitors until judgment. A payment on account of 50% of the claimant’s billed costs and pre-judgment interest was ordered.

The judgment records an earlier liability judgment in the same proceedings: Illiquidx Ltd v Altana Wealth Ltd [2025] EWHC 299 (Ch). This judgment determined consequential costs and was a first-instance decision.