Jacqueline Frances Gomes & Anor v AMG Financial Management Limited & Ors

In costs proceedings after summary disposal, the court should identify the overall winner first, then assess success on separate applications and the parties’ conduct. A successful party may receive a percentage reduction where distinct alternative applications materially increased costs and failed. The usual basis is standard costs. Indemnity costs require conduct or circumstances taking the case out of the norm; summary judgment of a weak or hopeless claim does not, by itself, justify indemnity costs. A reasonable payment on account should be ordered where detailed assessment is directed, and the default payment period applies absent good reason to extend it.

The judgment determined costs after the court had disposed of the claim in the main judgment, [2026] EWHC 2284 (Comm). The Third Defendant, Marco Mandelli, was accepted as the overall winner, but the Claimants disputed whether his recovery should be reduced because separate abuse-of-process and failure-to-comply applications failed, whether costs should be assessed on the standard or indemnity basis, and the amount and timing of any payment on account. The parties agreed that the outstanding costs issues could be decided on written submissions. The central questions were how to reflect partial success across distinct applications and whether the conduct warranted indemnity costs.

Disposition. The court ordered that Mr Mandelli recover 100% of his costs for the period in which he acted in person and 75% of his costs thereafter, when represented by Judge Sykes Frixou. The costs were to be assessed on the standard basis. The Claimants were ordered to pay £19,400 on account by 4 p.m. on 25 September 2026.

1. The court treated identification of the overall winner as the first stage of the costs enquiry. It then considered success on separate applications and the parties’ conduct. Applying the approach reflected in Straker v Tudor Rose (a firm) [2007] EWCA Civ 368, it held that the abuse-of-process and failure-to-comply applications were distinct, materially increased the represented period’s costs, and failed. The assessment was therefore not to be made mechanically by treating success on the summary judgment application as complete success. The contention that the failed applications had succeeded in substance was rejected because they had been brought to obtain summary disposal and no alternative sanction had been sought.
2. The usual basis of assessment was standard costs. Having regard to Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE & Others v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2026] EWHC 2207 (KB), the court held that indemnity costs require conduct or circumstances taking the case out of the norm and must be assessed in the round. It applied EasyAir Limited v Opal Telecom [2009] EWHC 779: summary judgment of a hopeless claim does not itself justify indemnity costs, since summary procedures are intended to prevent hopeless cases reaching trial. The early disposal before service of a defence differed from persistence of a speculative claim through trial. The pre-action protocol breach was relevant to the incidence of costs but did not justify indemnity costs. Unargued defects in the deed of assignment were excluded as a new satellite dispute.
3. A solicitor who represents himself may recover costs as a litigant in person under CPR 46.5(1). The court accordingly treated the pre-JSF and JSF periods separately.
4. As costs were subject to detailed assessment, a reasonable sum was payable on account. The court fixed this by applying 75% to the 75% of disclosed costs allowed for the JSF period, producing £19,400 when rounded down. In considering payment time, including the relevance of means discussed in Argus Media Limited v Halim [2020] EWHC 1062 (QB), there was no detailed financial evidence or workable alternative timetable. The default 14-day period therefore applied.

This was a first-instance costs judgment following the main judgment on the applications, [2026] EWHC 2284 (Comm). The parties agreed most consequential terms and invited the court to determine the outstanding costs issues on written submissions. No appeal is stated.