Rebecca Smith v Martin Rice

Where judgment has already been entered and only quantum and consequential costs remain, the court may determine those issues on the material properly before it. In the absence of a defence or evidence challenging the pleaded principal debt or contractual interest calculation, the court may enter judgment for the sums claimed. Costs ordinarily fall to be paid on the standard basis unless indemnity costs are justified. On assessment, recoverable costs must be reasonable and proportionate, and excessive or insufficiently explained work may be reduced or disallowed. A request for time to pay requires sufficient evidence of the debtor’s financial position and proposed payment arrangements.

By an order dated 7 July 2025, the court entered judgment for the claimant and directed written submissions on the outstanding amount of the judgment and consequential costs. The defendant sought an adjournment to try to resolve the matter, but provided no sufficient basis for delaying determination.

The claimant sought recovery of a principal sum, contractual interest and costs. The defendant had not filed a defence and provided no verified explanation challenging the principal sum, interest calculation or costs. The issues were therefore the amount of judgment, the basis and amount of costs, and whether time for payment should be allowed.

1. Quantum. Judgment was entered for the pleaded principal sum of £165,000. The defendant’s unverified acknowledgement of indebtedness of £110,000 did not provide a sufficient basis to reduce the claim in the absence of a defence or other explanatory material.
2. Interest. The court adopted the contractual method of calculation pleaded by the claimant. There was no evidence or submission explaining why it was incorrect. Interest was therefore awarded in the sum of £353,709.67, calculated to 24 September 2025.
3. Costs. Although judgment for costs had already been given, there was no argument supporting indemnity costs. Costs were accordingly payable on the standard basis. The court accepted that most solicitor and counsel fees were reasonable and proportionate, including the claimed hourly rates, but reduced or disallowed work which was excessive, duplicative or insufficiently explained. The assessment was reduced by £1,268.40 inclusive of VAT, leaving £24,908.64 allowed.
4. Time for payment and enforcement. The defendant had not made a formal request for time to pay or any offer. The available information did not establish the basis for granting time, particularly as the defendant might be able to pay by a lump sum. Enforcement matters were left to the District Judge at the Manchester District Registry in accordance with A1.5 of the Circuit Commercial Court Guide.

The judgment records that judgment for the claimant had been entered by order dated 7 July 2025. This decision determined the outstanding quantum, costs and consequential matters. No appeal is stated.