Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea v Beko Poland Manufacturing & Ors

Costs following the strike-out of a prolix and non-compliant defence are determined by the nature and purpose of the work undertaken, not merely by the fact that the pleading affected other parties. Parties who chose to attend a strike-out hearing, or to consider a pleading which was not part of proceedings to which they were responding, were not entitled to recover those costs from the unsuccessful party. Costs arising from amendments to surviving pleadings should ordinarily be dealt with if and when permission to amend is sought. Where a strike-out has derailed an existing timetable, the party responsible for the struck-out pleading may be ordered to pay the affected parties’ costs of consequential case-management work, while avoiding recovery for unsuccessful or unrelated costs applications.

The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea applied to strike out the Celotex defendants’ Defence and Counterclaim. The application concerned prolixity and non-compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules, rather than an allegation that the pleaded case was substantively abusive or legally outrageous. Celotex conceded that the pleading should be struck out and entirely repleaded.

This consequential hearing determined costs issues involving Celotex and the other defendants, including costs of considering the struck-out pleading, attendance at the October strike-out hearing, possible amendments to Part 20 pleadings, and the present case-management hearing.

1. The court declined to order Rydon, CEP, Harley or other defendants costs incurred in considering the struck-out Defence and Counterclaim. The pleading was not a pleading in the contribution proceedings, and the application concerned form rather than substance. Any costs caused by amendments to the Part 20 Particulars of Claim could be addressed under the usual costs orders if permission to amend were later sought.

2. No prospective costs order was made in relation to possible amendments. It remained uncertain whether amendments would be made and what consequential costs would result.

3. The attendance of defendants who were not parties to the strike-out application was a matter of choice. Their attendance, noting briefs and related correspondence did not justify an order for costs against Celotex. The appropriate order for the October hearing and preceding matters was costs in the case, subject to a proviso ensuring that the claimants would not ultimately bear those costs.

4. Celotex was ordered to pay the claimants’ and affected defendants’ costs of the present hearing insofar as they concerned case-management and timetabling issues. The strike-out had derailed the timetable previously set, making that consequential hearing necessary. Celotex was not ordered to pay costs of the defendants’ unsuccessful costs applications, and no order was made against Beko or Arconic, which sought no costs.

5. The costs were not summarily assessed because they could not sensibly be separated from the other work undertaken at the hearing.

Not stated in the judgment.