Mitchell Winehouse (suing as the personal representative of Amy Jade Winehouse (deceased)) v Naomi Parry & Anor

Costs ordinarily follow the event, but the court retains a wide discretion under Civil Procedure Rules r44.2. An alleged failure to engage in ADR must be shown to be unreasonable and, even then, is only a factor in the costs decision. Indemnity costs may be ordered where conduct or circumstances take the case out of the norm. Conduct must be unreasonable to a high degree, although moral condemnation is unnecessary. A weak or thin claim pursued aggressively with serious unfounded allegations, late changes, publicity and pressure on vulnerable opponents may cumulatively justify indemnity costs. Where costs are subject to detailed assessment, an interim payment should estimate likely recovery with a margin for error. An application for permission to appeal does not itself stay payment.

The claimant, as personal representative of Amy Winehouse’s estate, claimed that the defendants were not entitled to possess or sell 141 items of property. Following a six-day trial, the substantive judgment found for both defendants and dismissed all claims: [2026] EWHC 911 (KB).

This judgment determined the consequential costs issues. The claimant accepted that the defendants were successful but argued that their conduct justified no order as to costs or, alternatively, a substantial reduction. The defendants sought costs on the indemnity basis, interim payments on account and no stay pending any application for permission to appeal. The central issues were the incidence and basis of costs, any reduction, the amount of interim payments and whether payment should be stayed.

The court ordered the claimant to pay both defendants’ costs on the indemnity basis, subject to detailed assessment. It ordered interim payments of £569,330.99 to the first defendant and £394,521.89 to the second defendant, payable within 14 days of the 29 July Order. No stay was granted.

1. Incidence of costs. Under Civil Procedure Rules r44.2, costs ordinarily follow the event, subject to the court’s discretion. Proper weight had to be given to the defendants’ complete success. The claimant had not established an unreasonable failure by either defendant to engage in ADR. Applying Gore v Naheed [2017] EWCA Civ 369, any unreasonable failure would have been only a factor and would not automatically have produced a costs penalty.
2. Indemnity basis. The judge applied the approach in Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hammer Aspden and Johnson [2002] EWCA Civ 879, Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England [2006] 5 Costs L.R. 714 and Thakkar and others v Mican and another [2024] EWCA Civ 552. The discretion is wide, but conduct relied on must take the case out of the norm and be unreasonable to a high degree. Moral condemnation is unnecessary. The claimant’s weak, vague and changing case, aggressive pursuit, serious unfounded allegations, publicity and pressure on vulnerable defendants were considered cumulatively. They justified indemnity costs.
3. Reduction. The claimant was liable for the defendants’ total costs, subject to detailed assessment. The court declined to make a 75 per cent or other global reduction.
4. Interim payments. Under r44.2(8), the court estimated likely recovery and allowed a margin for error, applying the guidance in Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc [2015] EWHC 566 (Comm) and Thomas Pink Ltd v Victoria’s Secret UK Ltd [2014] EWHC 3258 (Ch). It used 90 per cent of budgeted costs and 75 per cent of unbudgeted costs. A late challenge to the second defendant’s liability for her solicitors’ costs did not undermine the signed costs schedules.
5. Stay. An application for permission to appeal did not automatically stay execution. The judge exercised the discretion against a stay, and ordered payment within 14 days under r44.7.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): The earlier substantive judgment found for the defendants and dismissed all claims, [2026] EWHC 911 (KB) . This consequential judgment determined costs, interim payments and permission-to-appeal consequences.