Rostrum Leasing 1 DAC v Tri-MG Airlines Limited & Ors

On a summary assessment of costs, the court must determine a reasonable sum by evaluating the nature and complexity of the work, the appropriate guideline rate, the work reasonably required, and the level of fees claimed. Costs incurred on related procedural applications may properly be included where they resulted from the opposing parties’ conduct. A party’s loss on one issue does not necessarily justify reducing the incidence or amount of costs where that issue did not materially affect the application as a whole. The assessment may nevertheless include a modest reduction to reflect excessive fees or work.

The claimant sought summary assessment of costs incurred in two applications to amend its pleadings and provide for a deemed service date. Following a case management conference, the First to Third Defendants were ordered to pay the costs of those applications, including specified extension applications. The parties could not agree the amount and provided written submissions.

The claimant claimed £49,419.60 for the April application and £10,556.50 for the November application. The defendants challenged the applicable guideline rate, counsel’s fees, and the time spent on extension applications and evidence. They also argued that the claimant’s loss on deemed service and the possibility of dealing with the matter at the case management conference justified a substantial reduction.

1. The costs of the April application were summarily assessed at £44,000. The work was sufficiently heavy and complex to justify the London band 1 guideline rate. Some reduction was appropriate because of the level of counsel’s fees and the time spent on the extension applications and the claimant’s eighth witness statement.
2. The claimant’s loss on deemed service did not affect either the incidence of costs or the summary assessment of the November application. The majority of that application concerned the defendants’ failure to sign a consent order for amendments to which they had already indicated consent, together with clerical amendments.
3. Issuing the November application was reasonable because the defendants had failed to sign the consent order and had gone silent after the hearing was vacated. The court nevertheless allowed a modest reduction for counsel’s fees and work on documents, assessing those costs at £8,000.
4. The First to Third Defendants were ordered to pay a total of £52,000 within 14 days of the order confirming the summary assessment.