Rollerteam Ltd v Tariq Siddiqi

An unless order must be construed according to its ordinary meaning and the context of the case. It must state clearly what the recipient must do to avoid the sanction. Compliance does not require information to be provided in a particular format unless the order says so. In a detailed assessment, common costs may be recoverable in full where they would reasonably have been incurred by the receiving party alone, subject to the indemnity principle. Costs specifically increased by, or attributable solely to, other parties should be apportioned.

Rollerteam Ltd appealed against Costs Judge Rowley’s decision to strike out its amended bill of costs and assess the costs at zero. The appellant was one of five defendants who had obtained costs orders in earlier proceedings. An unless order required a revised bill to identify jointly incurred work and state the proportion claimed for the appellant.

The appellant’s revised bill stated that the work had been undertaken for the benefit of all five defendants, claimed 100% for the appellant except for a 10% reduction relating to work benefiting another defendant, and explained that position in assessment notes. The central issues were whether the bill materially breached the unless order and whether the costs claim was inherently unrealistic.

1. Appeal allowed. The revised bill complied with the unless order. It identified work done jointly for the appellant and other defendants and stated the proportion claimed for the appellant.
2. An unless order takes effect automatically upon material non-compliance under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 3.8. Any application by the defaulting party must ordinarily be for relief from sanctions under rule 3.9. The court must construe the order by giving its words their ordinary meaning in context. The order must be sufficiently clear to leave the recipient in no doubt what must be done to avoid the sanction.
3. The order did not require the information to appear beside each item, nor did it require the bill to reflect sums which the costs judge considered realistic. The appellant’s explanatory notes supplied the information actually required. The costs judge therefore erred by treating the failure to divide individual entries as a material breach.
4. The costs judge’s alternative reasoning was also flawed. It was not correct that only costs incurred solely for the appellant’s benefit could be recovered in full. Subject to the indemnity principle, common costs which would reasonably have been incurred by the appellant in defending the claims in any event may be recoverable in full. Costs capable of identification as having been increased by issues concerning other defendants, or attributable solely to them, require appropriate division.
5. Costs incurred to achieve the defendants’ joint objective of resisting the injunction, disclosure and amendment applications and obtaining strike-out or summary judgment were likely to have been incurred substantially even if fewer defendants had been involved. The bill was therefore not shown to be unrealistic merely because the same solicitors acted for all defendants.

The judgment states that the appeal was from Costs Judge Rowley’s decision dated 12 June 2024, which struck out the appellant’s amended bill of costs and assessed the claimed costs at zero. The High Court allowed the appeal.