ICG Manager Ltd & Ors v Colliers International Valuation UK LLP

On a partly successful application to amend pleadings, a party may still be the successful party where it obtains much, but not all, of the relief sought. Costs remain discretionary. The court may reduce the successful party’s recovery where its conduct, including maintaining an earlier draft that conveyed a case later disavowed, caused the opponent unnecessary costs. The order should reflect both the relief obtained and the parties’ conduct. Where a pre-trial review is imminent, consequential directions may be deferred to that hearing, while preparatory work should continue so that time is not lost.

This was a consequential first-instance decision following the court’s judgment on the claimants’ application to re-amend their Particulars of Claim, reported at [2026] EWHC 1749 (Ch). The claimants had obtained most, but not all, of the amendments sought. The court had to determine consequential directions and the costs of the amendment application, including which party was successful and how the claimants’ earlier drafts and the resulting unnecessary costs should affect the order.

1. Consequential directions. The court had already permitted re-amendment in most, but not all, of the respects sought. Because a pre-trial review was due on 23 or 24 July, it was appropriate to leave directions concerning consequential amendments to the Defence and Reply, and any further witness statement or statements, to the pre-trial review. The defendant was expected to begin the necessary work immediately so that no time was lost.
2. Successful party. The claimants were the successful party because they obtained much of the relief sought, despite not obtaining every amendment requested. Success was therefore assessed in practical terms rather than on an all-or-nothing basis.
3. Conduct affecting costs. The claimants’ costs had been increased, and the defendant had incurred unnecessary costs, because the initial Version 1 draft appeared to allege breach of fiduciary duty. Although the claimants later clarified that this was not intended, Version 1 remained consistent with such a claim. The hearing proceeded on Version 3. That conduct justified reducing the claimants’ recovery.
4. Order. The claimants were awarded half their costs of the application. Their costs summary was £38,601.50, and the court summarily assessed the recoverable amount at £19,300 inclusive of VAT. The defendant was entitled to the costs of and occasioned by the amendments permitted by the court. The costs incurred in dealing with earlier abortive drafts were reflected in limiting the claimants to half their costs.

High Court The judgment followed the court’s earlier decision on the application to re-amend the Particulars of Claim, [2026] EWHC 1749 (Ch) . No appeal is stated.