Adam Clive Scott v The Estate of Richard Norman Scott & Ors (Consequential matters)

In assessing costs, the court must identify the successful party and then exercise its discretion having regard to all the circumstances. Admissible Calderbank offers require a multi-factorial and holistic assessment of their terms and practical value when made. The reasonableness of rejecting an offer is relevant, but an unreasonable refusal does not automatically determine the costs order. An indemnity order requires circumstances taking the case outside the norm. A successful party’s failure on a significant, self-contained issue may justify a percentage reduction, but there is no automatic reduction for losing arguments on the path to overall success.

This was a consequential-matters hearing following the trial judgment of 29 October 2025 in proceedings concerning proprietary estoppel, probate, sham tenancies and injunctive relief. The court determined outstanding interlocutory matters and the costs of the trial. The principal issues were the effect of the claimant’s admissible settlement offers, whether the defendant’s conduct justified indemnity costs, and whether the defendant’s failure on parts of her case required a reduction in her costs.

1. Outstanding applications. The claimant could restore his claim for injunctive relief within six months. If he did not, it would be struck out, with costs consequences equivalent to discontinuance. He was ordered to pay the costs of his abandoned committal application. Costs of the specific disclosure and privilege applications were costs in the case.
2. Successful party and Calderbank offers. The second defendant was clearly successful because the claimant failed on his proprietary estoppel and probate claims. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, CPR 44.2, the court retained a broad discretion. The Calderbank offers had to be assessed holistically, including the certainty and practical value of the proposed consideration. The claimant failed to show that rejection of any offer was unreasonable. The offers did not provide sufficient certainty that the estate would ultimately receive the proposed consideration, and the land had value beyond the professional valuation.
3. Basis of assessment. The case was not outside the norm so as to justify indemnity costs. The proprietary estoppel claim was realistically arguable on the claimant’s case, the probate claim was supported by conflicting expert evidence, and the claimant’s inaccurate evidence did not amount to wholesale dishonesty. The number of farm witnesses did not alter that conclusion. Costs were therefore payable on the standard basis.
4. Reduction for partial success. There was no automatic reduction for failure on individual issues. The clean-hands issue substantially overlapped with factual matters that would have been explored in any event. The sham-tenancies claim was more self-contained, although overlapping with other issues, and justified a 10% reduction. The claimant was therefore ordered to pay 90% of the second defendant’s costs on the standard basis. Interest on costs was ordered at base rate plus 2% from payment.

This was a first-instance consequential-matters judgment following the trial judgment of 29 October 2025. No appellate history was stated.