Latest Case Law Updates
Turner v Coupland Cavendish Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 1204 (21 September 2026) – Solicitors Act assessment where a Part 18 request had been made by the client in respect of secret commissions alleged to have been paid in relation to ATE insurance. The ATE premium was recorded, correctly (following Herbert), in the cash account, rather than the Solicitors’ Bill of Costs. The Court of Appeal found that cash-account disputes and commission questions fall outside the scope of Solicitor/Own Client Assessments, and that any client who suspects that some form of commission has been paid in these circumstances must sue for an account or take the issue to the Legal Ombudsman. The decision provides a useful explanation as to the role of a cash account in a Solicitors Act assessment.
Servicios de Salud del Instituto Mexico del Seguro Social Para el Bienstar v Viva Enterprises Limited & Anor – Find Case Law – The National Archives – judgment dealing with various issues, including interest on costs, both pre and post judgment.
In terms of pre-judgment interest on costs, the Court found that the Claimant had been out of pocket for some time before succeeding in the claim and therefore awarded 1% above the Bank of England base rate, to be applied from the date of payment of the relevant invoices, presumably meaning a separate interest calculation in relation to each and every interim statute bill.
With regard to post-judgment interest, the Defendant sought a delay of six months before judgment rate interest kicked in, citing the previous decision in Excalibur Ventures LLP -v- Texas Keystone Inc & Ors. The Court was not persuaded by this, not least because the Defendant had known the extent of the Claimant’s costs for some time and had not taken steps to protect its position; however, the Court did allow a period of 14 days after the handing down of judgment where interest would run at the pre-judgment rate, to allow the Defendant to make a payment on account.
Jones v Persons Unknown [2026] EWCA Civ 1212 (28 September 2026) – an order for costs had been made for payment in Bitcoin, from a specific wallet. This wallet was controlled by the Fourth Defendant, who was not one of the parties ordered to pay costs, and appears to have contained Bitcoin owned by a non-party. The Court of Appeal regarding the costs order as containing some “most unusual provision[s]”. Firstly, in telling a party who has been ordered to pay money where that money is to come from and, secondly, in requiring that the costs liability be discharged in Bitcoin, rather than following the general rule “that costs should be awarded in the currency in which a party has paid, or is liable to pay, his solicitors”. The Court expressed doubt that payment in Bitcoin should have been ordered without the point having been fully argued.
Lemos & Ors v Church Bay Trust Company & Ors [2026] EWHC 2402 (SCCO) (16 September 2026) – The Second and Third Claimants had agreed to pay the Defendant’s costs of the main action (an Insolvency Act claim) in the sum of £1,011,135.40. During the main action, the Claimant had obtained ATE insurance from the Interested Party with an indemnity limit of £1,000,000. The Interested Party had stepped into the shoes of the Claimants when seeking to negotiate costs. The Claimant, with the support of the Defendant, sought an order to the effect that the Interested Party pay the Defendant’s costs of assessment (the Claimant’s where proposed to be jointly and severally liable for those costs, but with a 100% contribution from the Interested Party). There was no application for a non-party costs order, the Interested Party having become party to proceedings after the costs proceedings were set down for an assessment hearing.
The application was dismissed as being without merit, the Interested Party and the Claimants having acted in their mutual interest to seek to reduce the Defendant’s claim for costs and the application was considered to have been advanced as a result of the Claimant’s personal liability for sums due over and above the limit of indemnity. Concerns were raised by the Costs Judge as to the extent of the Defendant’s costs of assessment, which remained to be assessed.
Gillian McGivern v MBR Acres Limited & Ors – Find Case Law – The National Archives – following the dismissal of committal proceedings in a civil action, brought by the Respondent, and considered by the Court to be totally without merit, the legally aided Appellant was awarded costs on the indemnity basis. The Appellant had also retained solicitors by way of a CFA lite. The Courts below found that this amounted to “topping up” which they considered prohibited and limited costs recovery to criminal legal aid rates (committal proceedings being regarded as criminal proceedings regardless of them having arisen in a civil claim). The first ground of appeal advanced two arguments, firstly that the indemnity principle was disapplied in legally aided cases and, secondly, if that were not the case then the CFA lite set out the extent of the Appellant’s liability for costs, which could therefore be recovered from the Respondent.
The first ground failed as the provisions that disapply the indemnity principle in civil legal aid cases do not appear in the equivalent criminal legal aid regulations.
The second ground succeeded, based on a construction of sections 23(1) and 28(2) of LASPO Act 2012 and paragraph 8.10 of the applicable Standard Crime Contract specification and because the CFA lite did not require the Appellant to make any payment from her own funds.
3173 Bidco Ltd & Anor v Roberts & Anor (No.2)(Re Costs of Early Neutral Evaluation) [2026] EWHC 2312 (Comm) (07 September 2026) – A decision which reinforces that the default starting position on the costs of Early Neutral Evaluation is costs in the case, absent compelling reasons to depart from that approach. In this case the Defendant advanced an unpleaded argument at the ENE, which the Judge was not persuaded was sufficient to displace the usual order. The Court was conscious of the need to discourage satellite litigation around unsuccessful instances of Early Neutral Evaluation.
Henderson & Anor v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 2645 (SCCO) (16 October 2026) – A decision on a point of principle in two linked detailed assessments, namely whether or not a “Without Prejudice Breakdown of Costs Schedule” has the status of without prejudice privilege and, if it did, whether or not the paying party could demonstrate unambiguous impropriety.
The receiving party had served costs schedules, marked “without prejudice” that were a little more than 20% higher than the bills of costs ultimately served when it proved impossible to settle costs on the basis of the schedules. The paying party cried foul and sought to adduce and rely upon the “without prejudice” documents in the detailed assessment.
The parties appear to have accepted that the “without prejudice” schedules were, prima facie, without prejudice documents, essentially resolving the first issue. In terms of the second point, the Court was satisfied that the schedules, rather than being inflated, represented the actual costs of the receiving party in each case, with the schedules having been originally prepared for the purpose of obtaining a payment on account, prior to a costs specialist applying professional judgment and removing or discounting those items with little or no realistic prospect of recovery inter partes, as was said to have occurred when preparing the bills of costs. That these included the costs of a failed application was found to have been a genuine, isolated, mistake, corrected during the bill drafting process. The paying party was found to be unable to demonstrate unambiguous impropriety and thus were unable to adduce and rely upon the schedules.
Lintern v Haven Insurance Company Ltd [2026] EWHC 2478 (KB) (28 July 2026)
In circumstances where post October 2023 FRC applied, the Claimant accepted the Defendant’s Part 36 late, after the case has moved beyond the trigger point for the next stage of fixed costs (11 months later in this case, on the first day of trial), no costs order was made in the Claimant’s favour, fixed costs were awarded to the Defendant but with a deduction to those fixed costs to reflect the fixed costs that the Claimant would have been entitled to at the end of the relevant period.