Quidpay Finance Limited v Settlego Solutions Limited (T/A OpenPayd)

When costs of a reserved interim application are determined after a related trial, the court should assess the effective outcome, not merely the form of relief. A claimant that obtains the substance of the relief by another route will ordinarily start as the successful party. That starting point may be adjusted for conduct, partial success, unsustainable allegations and late abandonment causing unnecessary costs. A payment on account is provisional; excessive hourly rates may be reduced while leaving detailed assessment open. Pre-judgment interest is compensatory. It is assessed broadly by reference to the claimant’s general attributes and comparable borrowing or deposit rates. Where the evidence does not place the claimant in either category, a fair intermediate rate may be selected.

Following the preliminary-issue judgment in favour of QuidPay ([2026] EWHC 1991 (Ch)), the High Court had to determine the reserved costs of an injunction application, the costs of preliminary-issue applications and trial, and interest on sums which OpenPayd was ordered to pay. The injunction application sought removal of a suspension and release of funds; the preliminary-issue judgment produced release of reserve-account monies by a different route. OpenPayd did not seek permission to appeal. The issues were how the effective outcome, party conduct, abandoned allegations and claimed hourly rates should affect costs, and what period and rate of compensatory interest was appropriate.

The defendant did not seek permission to appeal, so no stay fell to be determined. The court determined the consequential issues as follows:

1. Injunction application. The reserved costs were assessed by comparing the effective outcome with the relief sought. QuidPay obtained release of the reserve-account monies through the preliminary-issue proceedings and was the overall successful party, although the account suspension was not lifted. The starting point was therefore an order for QuidPay’s costs. That entitlement was reduced because QuidPay had pursued an unsustainable beneficial-ownership case, made improper allegations, and abandoned other contractual arguments late. The court rejected criticism of OpenPayd concerning the possible legal impediment and considered the route suggested in C v S [1999] 1 WLR 1551 immaterial to the costs outcome. QuidPay was awarded 65% of its injunction-application costs, subject to standard assessment, with £113,381.78 payable on account.
2. Preliminary-issue applications. OpenPayd was the successful party. Its claimed hourly rates, approximately 235% of the guideline rates, were excessive. Complexity, urgency and international elements did not justify retaining them. The comparison with JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky [2025] BCC 393 supported a reduced provisional payment, fixed at £7,000 on account, without binding the detailed assessment.
3. Preliminary-issue trial. OpenPayd was ordered to pay QuidPay’s costs, subject to standard assessment, with £110,731.70 payable on account.
4. Interest. The compensatory principles in Carrasco v Johnson [2018] EWCA Civ 87 were followed. The court preferred that later decision to Jones and others v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2014] EWCA Civ 363 to the extent of any difference. The absence of a contractual interest provision was irrelevant because the reserve-account funds were not e-money; EMR 2011 therefore did not apply. Interest ran from 27 May 2026, when the money should have been returned, at 1% above base rate, namely 4.75%. The calculated sums were £58,301.37 and €20,436.44, subject to checking.

This was a consequential judgment following the court’s preliminary-issue judgment of 30 July 2026, reported as [2026] EWHC 1991 (Ch) . The defendant did not seek permission to appeal. The present judgment determined the reserved costs and interest issues.