Latest Case Law Updates
Bassey -v- Whittaker & Anor [2026] EWHC 2126 (KB)
This appeal concerned whether a court could revise an approved costs budget where there have been no “significant developments” in the litigation since the budget was approved.
The High Court held that it cannot. Mr Justice Cavanagh ruled that, under CPR 3.15A, the existence of a significant development is a necessary threshold requirement before a costs budget may be revised. Significant developments are case specific and each case turns on its own facts. As the District Judge had expressly found that there were no significant developments, he had no power to permit a variation of the budget. Follows the decision in Persimmon Homes Ltd & Anor v Osborne Clark LLP & Anor [2021] EWHC 831 (Ch) (12 April 2021)
HD & Ors v North Devon Healthcare Trust & Ors [2026] EWHC 2009 (SCCO) (04 August 2026)
Part way through detailed assessment proceedings, the SRA intervened into the Claimant’s solicitor, a sole practitioner. He was later struck off. After a considerable period of delay, the Defendant made applications to dispose of the costs claim.
The retainers between the solicitor and six clients were found to have been repudiated by the solicitor by his abandonment of the litigation before its conclusion, with the CFAs found, unsurprisingly, to be entire contracts. Indemnity principle bites, no costs payable.
It then got worse for the solicitor. Owing to the lengthy and deliberate delay, the detailed assessment proceedings were found to be an abuse of process and struck out, the solicitor was ordered to repay payments on account totalling £92k and was found personally liable on the indemnity basis for the costs of assessment under CPR 44.11.
Hoffman & Anor v Finalto Group Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 1702 (Comm) (06 July 2026)
The Claimant’s were partly successful in their claims and entirely successful in defeating counterclaims brought by the Defendants. On the face of it, they had succeeded in the litigation. However, the Defendants had made a Part 36 offer to settle the matter at £3.5 million earlier in proceedings. That offer was withdrawn, after trial, and it was accepted that Part 36 consequences could not therefore apply. The Court took the offer into account under CPR 44.2(4)(c) when making the final costs order, limiting the Claimant’s to two-thirds of their costs on the standard basis for the period up to the expiry of the Defendants’ offer. The Claimant had sought all of their costs of the claim on the indemnity basis, conceding only that perhaps a 5% discount might be reasonable.