PIC: Latest Case Law Updates
Awan v Patel & Ors [2025] EWHC 3332 (SCCO) (02 October 2025) – this, on its face, looks like a fairly unsurprising application to compel a receiving party to commence assessment proceedings. Unsurprising because the order for costs was made in 2018 and £118,000 ordered to be paid on account. Matters then deviated from the norm. The payment on account was not paid, and became a judgment debt, which the receiving party sought to enforce, seeking to treat the commencement of assessment proceedings as optional. Applications for charging orders and orders for sale of the paying party’s property began flying around.
Having looked at CPR 47.6-8 and the decision in Haji-Ioannou v Frangos & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1663 (06 December 2006), Master Brown ordered the receiving party to commence assessment proceedings.
Thomas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3274 (KB) (10 December 2025) – the usual Part 36 (36.17) provisions apply where the Court makes a consent order for damages after trial, rather than delivering judgment. Vanden Recycling Ltd v Kras Recycling BV [2017] EWCA Civ 354 (17 May 2017) refers.
Aereal Bank AG v Lumineau & Anor [2025] EWHC 3299 (SCCO) (08 September 2025). Deputy Costs Judge (“DCJ”) assessing a bill from a fairly short-lived piece of litigation. The DCJ showed reluctance to move from the published guideline rates (London 2 in this instance), referencing Samsung, but ultimately agreeing to allow a little over guideline for the Partner rate – £410 rather than the £433.50 claimed, where the guideline rate was £398. Perhaps more interesting was the Ainsworth point in relation to Counsel’s fees, where the paying party pleaded a rather limited case, resulting in fees that might otherwise have been reduced being left alone, although the DCJ did make the point that they might go back and reduce those fees when looking at proportionality.
CRF I Limited v Banco Nacional De Cuba & Anor [2025] EWHC 3279 (Comm) (12 December 2025) on a summary assessment, submissions to the effect that the guideline hourly rates were out of date were shot down in flames, noting that parties may agree to pay their solicitors more, but that the guidelines are guidelines for reasonable recovery (remembering that this was a summary assessment). This was a payment on account application in a high value case where overall costs run into the millions.
Shmuel Moller & Ors v One Touch Solution Limited & Anor – Find Case Law – The National Archives – covers the VAT position when an insurer, who was party to the action via the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010, goes into liquidation. In this case the insurer was the receiving party. The conclusion was that the liquidators could recover VAT from the taxman on the insurer’s behalf, and therefore it was not recoverable between the parties.
The Winros Partnership v Global Energy Horizons Corporation [2025] EWHC 3362 (Ch) (19 December 2025) – solicitor/client assessment where the solicitors had terminated the CFA by accepting a repudiatory breach of the retainer by the client. This occurred prior to a “win” being achieved under the terms of the CFA. The Court held that the termination was at common law, rather than via the contractual termination powers contained within the CFA and that no common law restitutionary claim was possible given that the solicitors had deliberately chosen not to exercise their existing contractual power to terminate the retainer. A claim for quantum meruit on the basis of unjust enrichment failed on similar grounds. The bill, for £6 million, was assessed at nil. The judgment ends with a summary of the limitations of detailed assessment as an enforcement tool.
Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd v Bargain Busting Ltd [2025] EWHC 3141 (Ch) (28 November 2025) – deals with a summary assessment of the costs of a variation application in trademark proceedings. Serves as an example of the short shrift claims for London 1 (and higher) hourly rates can receive where the case is not deemed sufficiently complex.
Gable Insurance Ag (Incorporated In Liechtenstein) v Dewsall & Ors [2025] EWHC 3399 (Ch) (23 December 2025) – a claim brought against a number of defendants failed against one of those defendants. The Claimant conceded that they would have to pay costs in principle but argued for a 25% penalty owing to the Defendant’s failure to engage with an offer of ADR. As the Claimant’s offers of ADR had been made to the defendants generally, rather than the successful one in particular, and because the Claimant appeared to have shown no interest in settling that Defendant’s claim in isolation, no penalty was applied for failing to engage in ADR.
Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Langley [2026] EWCC 1 (07 January 2025) – rights of audience and Mazur. An unauthorised outdoor clerk attended a Small Claims Track hearing as an agent of the Claimant’s solicitors and sought to argue that they were an exempt person for the purposes of the Legal Services Act and therefore could exercise a right of audience. The District Judge went through the requirements of the act and determined that this argument failed on each and every point (or at least each one that was relevant).
Seymour v Ragley Trust Company Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 3400 (Ch) (04 November 2025) – the receiving parties sought a payment on account of costs, having succeeded at trial. The paying party argued that the issues to be dealt with on assessment were complex and therefore there should not be an order for a payment on account of costs. On the facts of the case, the Court was not prepared to depart from the general rule and ordered a payment on account, albeit at a lower level than cases like Mars would suggest is the norm.
Thomas Barnes & Sons PLC v Blackburn With Darwen Borough Council [2026] EWHC 24 (TCC) (13 January 2026) – a Claimant in liquidation brought a claim against a local authority in relation to a bus station. That claim failed and a non-party costs order was granted against a group of individuals who had funded the litigation for the Claimant, sought to benefit from it, and, in one case, had exercised control over that litigation. The Judge considered the individuals to have been the “real parties” to the litigation.
National House-Building Council v Hodson Developments Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 3438 (TCC) (15 September 2025) – three defendants missed the filing dates for budgets. Two of them were one day late, the other, whose solicitors had recently terminated the retainer with them, did not file a budget until the day before the CMC, despite having been warned of the consequences of late filing by their solicitors as they were coming off record. The Defendants who had filed one day late were granted relief from sanction, the Defendant who filed their budget one day before the CMC (echoing Mitchell) were not. It should be noted that this Defendant was an unrepresented limited company at the point the budget was due to be filed, which the Court found to differ from a litigant in person (and thus not falling within the exception to the budget rules for litigants in person).
Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd (Re Costs) [2025] EWHC 3419 (Ch) (17 December 2025) – covers who was the real winner in the litigation, whether issue-based costs orders should be made and interim payments. Most of the interim payment stuff was conventional and dealt with by agreement (70% of incurred costs, 90% of budgeted). There were though, some costs that fell outside of budgeting and an element of overspend (with the judgment touching on difficulties that may be encountered in varying budgets). Those costs that fell outside of budgeting were subject to a 70% interim payment but that was because the paying party had agreed that on the incurred costs element. For the overspend, an interim payment of 20% was awarded, which is interesting, if rather fact specific, in the context of CPR 3.15A and 3.18, with the Judge finding that the receiving party was likely to establish good reason.