Alphabet (UK) Limited Insurance UK PLC

Proceedings may be issued solely to obtain an order for pre-action costs where the substantive claim has settled but costs remain disputed. The relevant question is whether instructing solicitors was reasonable, not whether it was strictly necessary. For a vehicle-damage claim exceeding £10,000, the fixed-costs rules indicate that solicitor instruction is prima facie reasonable. The “normal track” for fixed-cost purposes can be assessed in a claim settled before issue by considering the claim’s value and nature, without applying trial-length and expert-evidence criteria that cannot yet be known. Where the fixed-cost regime applies, the fixed sum is not reduced merely because the work actually undertaken was modest.

The claimant, a vehicle leasing company, sought costs after its insured vehicle was written off and the defendant insurer paid the claimed vehicle-damage sum but refused to pay pre-action costs. Proceedings were issued under Part 7 and transferred to the Senior Courts Costs Office, although the judge sat as a District Judge of the County Court.

The defendant argued that the proceedings were an abuse of process and that it had been unreasonable to instruct solicitors because the damages claim was promptly resolved. The parties later addressed whether fixed recoverable costs applied and how the costs of the proceedings themselves should be determined.

1. Proceedings to recover costs. The proceedings were not an abuse of process. Where a defendant pays or tenders damages but refuses to pay properly incurred pre-action costs, the claimant must have a means of obtaining a costs order. The court applied the reasoning in Birmingham City Council v Lee [2008] EWCA Civ 891, Ayton v RSM Bentley Jennison [2018] EWHC 285 and Moreira v French (HHJ Stewart, 30 September 2008).
2. Reasonableness of solicitor instruction. The applicable question was whether it was reasonable, rather than strictly necessary, to instruct solicitors. The discretion was fact-sensitive. The claimant’s commercial sophistication and experience in vehicle leasing did not establish that solicitor instruction was unreasonable. At the material time there had been no admission of liability, and the claimant was entitled to pursue a prompt claim.
3. Fixed costs and the normal track. Under CPR 45.43, the fixed-costs provisions applied to a claim which would normally be allocated to the fast track, even though proceedings had not been allocated. For a vehicle-damage claim exceeding £10,000, Table 12 was indicative that solicitor instruction was prima facie reasonable. The “normal track” was a term of art, as explained in Thaxton v Goodman (Costs Judge Haworth, 23 November 2010). For a pre-issue settlement, the court should consider the value and nature of the claim, rather than the trial-length and expert-evidence criteria in CPR 26.9(5) and (6).
4. Result. The claimant was entitled in principle to £599 fixed costs. The fixed-cost regime involves a swings-and-roundabouts approach and does not permit the court simply to reduce the fixed sum to reflect the modest work actually done.
5. The judge did not determine the separate order as to the costs of the proceedings. Observations concerning whether the hearing could be treated as a “trial”, and whether Part 8 might provide a proportionate procedure, were expressly non-binding.

The judgment describes proceedings issued under Part 7 in the Civil National Business Centre on 12 March 2024 and transferred by District Judge Worthington to the Senior Courts Costs Office on 29 May 2025. The matter remained in the County Court for determination by the judge sitting as a District Judge.