Power Projects Sanayi Insaat Ticaret Limited Sirketi v Star Assurance Company Limited

A court retains jurisdiction to determine consequential costs matters where its substantive judgment expressly adjourned those matters. Enhanced interest under CPR r. 36.17 is a distinct statutory and discretionary jurisdiction, separate from contractual interest, and may be awarded where a claimant beats its Part 36 offer and the circumstances make such an award just. Persistent pursuit of a hopeless defence, procedural non-cooperation, lack of candour and breach of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement may take conduct outside the norm and justify indemnity costs. Where the claimant beats its offer, the court may also award the additional amount and interest on costs provided for by Part 36.

The claimant had previously obtained judgment for principal and contractual interest under a performance bond. The court had adjourned consequential matters, including costs and permission to appeal. The claimant subsequently sought enhanced interest, the additional amount and interest on costs under Part 36, together with indemnity costs and summary assessment. The defendant made no submissions and did not appear. The central issues were whether the court retained jurisdiction to determine the Part 36 consequences, whether the claimant had beaten its offer, and what costs and interest orders should follow.

1. The court retained jurisdiction and was not functus officio. The first judgment determined only the substantive contractual claims for principal and contractual interest. The Part 36 entitlements arose under a distinct statutory and discretionary jurisdiction, and consequential matters had expressly been adjourned for later determination.
2. The claimant had beaten its Part 36 offer because the judgment sum, including contractual interest calculated to the relevant date, exceeded the offer. The court considered the offer genuine and the relevant circumstances sufficient to avoid the injustice exception. Enhanced interest was therefore awarded at 10% above base rate from 9 May 2025 until the judgment of 16 September 2025.
3. The claimant satisfied the conditions for the additional amount under CPR r. 36.17(4)(d). The court awarded the maximum sum of £75,000.
4. Indemnity costs were justified. The defendant continued to defend the claim after it was clear that it had no proper defence, failed to cooperate and act candidly in the pre-hearing process, and commenced Ghanaian proceedings in breach of the exclusive jurisdiction agreement. That conduct went well beyond the norm.
5. On summary assessment, the court deducted £20,000 for one counsel because two counsel were instructed but only junior counsel conducted the advocacy. Costs were assessed at £321,212.06. Interest on costs was awarded at 14% from 9 May 2025 until the date of this judgment.

The judgment itself concerned consequential matters following the court’s earlier judgment handed down on 19 September 2025. No application for permission to appeal was made by the defendant.