Vertical Aerospace Group Limited v Thandiwe Ngoma

Costs are discretionary and must be determined consistently with Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 44.2. The general rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party does not require an order where neither party is an overall winner. Where the parties have each succeeded on interlinked issues, an issue-based or percentage allocation may be artificial. In those circumstances, the appropriate order may be costs in the case.

The judgment concerned costs following an earlier decision in the same claim, cited as [2026] EWHC 1096 (KB). The claimant had obtained and maintained an imaging order in modified terms, but its application for an interrogation order concerning electronic devices had been refused. The defendant had failed to set aside the imaging order for lack of full and frank disclosure, but had secured narrower affidavit requirements than the claimant originally sought. The issue was which costs order fairly reflected the parties’ partial and interwoven success.

1. The court’s costs discretion was governed by CPR 44.2. The general rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party was subject to the requirement to consider all the circumstances, including partial success, conduct and admissible settlement offers.
2. There was no clear overall winner. Each party had succeeded on some arguments and failed on others. The defendant’s challenge to the imaging order did not succeed, but the terms of the required affidavit were materially narrowed. The claimant’s interrogation-order application was refused, but the defendant’s proposed approach to disclosure was also rejected.
3. Because the applications and arguments were interlinking, separate orders for individual applications would have been artificial. The court also rejected attributing a particular percentage of the costs, since approximately half the hearing concerned matters producing a positive outcome for each party.
4. Applying CPR 44.2 to the circumstances as a whole, the appropriate order was costs in the case. The court considered, but rejected, reserving the costs or part of them. An order was directed to be drawn up accordingly.