Case Law Updates

Browse costs law case summaries and expert analysis from Mackenzie Costs. Covering detailed assessment, costs budgeting, fixed costs, QOCS, and more.

The library covers detailed assessment, costs budgeting, fixed costs, QOCS, solicitor-client costs, funding, CFAs and SCCO decisions.

Costs of a Preliminary Issue Trial in Libel: Paul Little Construction v Byrne and Sharif v Associated Newspapers — Detailed Assessment. Costs in the case is the usual order after a trial of preliminary issues on meaning in a libel claim. Eardley J applied Sharif v Associated Newspapers in Paul Little Construction v Byrne [2026] EWHC 2577 (KB): a party seeking a different order must show an unreasonable stance that caused unnecessary costs.
JBX v Frimley: 85% Costs Despite Losing the Main Trial Issue [2026] — Detailed Assessment. In JBX v Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (Costs) [2026] EWHC 2525 (KB), the High Court considered how to allocate costs where a claimant recovered substantial damages but lost the principal dispute about his future care. The court ordered the Trust to pay 85% of the claimant's costs on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. The decision illustrates the distinction between success on an important issue and success in the proceedings as a whole.
Essendi v London Property: Disclosing a Part 36 Offer's Date [2026] — Detailed Assessment. After a preliminary trial, the judge could be told the date of the defendant's first Part 36 offer without learning its protected terms. Essendi permits consideration of an earlier-period costs application; it does not decide whether the requested costs should be awarded.
Douglas v Channon: 70% Costs Despite a Failed Counterclaim [2026] — Detailed Assessment. The High Court upheld a 70% costs award despite the defendant's failed monetary counterclaims. Douglas v Channon explains mixed success, percentage costs orders and the limits of a costs appeal, while distinguishing the £108,402 payment on account from final assessed recovery.
Lemos v Church Bay: ATE Insurer Not Liable for Assessment Costs — Detailed Assessment. In Joanna Lemos & Ors v Church Bay Trust Company & Ors [2026] EWHC 2402 (SCCO), Costs Judge Nagalingam refused to shift detailed assessment costs to the paying parties' ATE insurer under CPR 47.20. The alleged obstruction was not proved, and the insurer's points of dispute had helped reduce the bill.
Turner v Coupland Cavendish: ATE Commissions and Costs Assessment [2026] — Solicitor & Client. The Court of Appeal limits ATE commission inquiries within solicitor and own client assessments, rejects the Raubenheimer ruling and explains why solicitors’ fiduciary duties remain.
Kul v DWF: New Points on Appeal and Late Amendments [2026] EWCA Civ 1130 — QOCS. The Court of Appeal refused to entertain a new and unpleaded case advanced at the appeal hearing. Kul v DWF explains the strict approach to late amendments, new points on appeal, relief from sanctions and why an order for costs cannot always compensate for procedural prejudice.
Servicios de Salud v Viva: 55% Costs and a 60% Payment on Account [2026] EWHC 2333 (Ch) — Detailed Assessment. In Servicios de Salud del Instituto Mexico del Seguro Social Para el Bienstar v Viva Enterprises Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 2333 (Ch), the High Court dealt with the consequentials following a trial about the supply of ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic. Richard Smith J ordered the First Defendant to pay 55% of the Claimant's costs on the standard basis, awarded pre-judgment interest on those costs at Bank of England base rate plus 1% from the dates the invoices were paid, and ordered a payment on account of 60% of the Claimant's costs schedule.
Gomes v AMG: 75% Costs and Standard Basis After Summary Judgment [2026] EWHC 2334 (Comm) — Detailed Assessment. In Jacqueline Frances Gomes & Anor v AMG Financial Management Limited & Ors [2026] EWHC 2334 (Comm), the Commercial Court decided the costs of a claim that had been dismissed summarily. Stuart Ritchie KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, awarded the successful defendant 100% of his costs for the period in which he acted for himself and 75% of his costs thereafter, on the standard basis, with a payment on account of £19,400 within 14 days.
3173 Bidco v Roberts: Costs of Failed ENE [2026] — Detailed Assessment. In 3173 Bidco Limited & Anor v Christopher James Roberts & Anor [2026] EWHC 2312 (Comm), the High Court considered who should bear the costs of a failed early neutral evaluation (ENE). HHJ Pearce ordered costs in the case despite finding that the defendants' failure to plead their case fully was the immediate cause of the ENE's failure. The judgment explains the caution required before imposing a separate costs liability for an unsuccessful ENE.
A1 v P: Medway Oil, Indemnity Costs and Arbitration Fees [2026] EWHC 2030 (Comm) — Detailed Assessment. The Commercial Court ordered indemnity costs against A1 on unsuccessful issues despite its successful jurisdiction challenge, rejected a restrictive reading of Medway Oil and reduced the claimants' arbitration legal costs by 40% for excessive rates and time.
Halabi v Gaymer: Non-Party Costs Against a Director [2026] EWHC 2269 (Ch) — Detailed Assessment. The High Court upheld a non-party costs order against a director who controlled company litigation for personal and family purposes. The required personal benefit need not be financial, but control or funding alone remains insufficient.
How Costs Lawyers Charge: Fees, Recoverability and What to Expect — Practice Guides. How Costs Lawyers charge, the difference between regulated Costs Lawyers and costs draftsmen, common fee models, and when drafting and assessment fees may be recovered from an opponent.
Part 36 Offers in Detailed Assessment: How They Work and Why They Bite — Practice Guides. How Part 36 applies to detailed assessment: valid offer terms, current interest rules, receiving and paying party consequences, the injustice test and the provisional-assessment costs cap.
Challenging Your Solicitor's Bill: Assessment Under the Solicitors Act 1974 — Practice Guides. Challenging a solicitor’s bill under the Solicitors Act 1974: statutory time limits, the one fifth costs rule, third-party applications and the distinct role of the Legal Ombudsman.
Guideline Hourly Rates 2026: The Current Figures and How Courts Use Them — Practice Guides. The official guideline hourly rates effective from 1 January 2026, their grades and location bands, how courts use them on assessment and when evidence may justify a different rate.
Points of Dispute: Format, Deadlines and Tactics — Practice Guides. Points of Dispute in inter partes detailed assessment: the 21 day deadline, Precedent G, the required open settlement letter, default costs certificates, Replies and provisional assessment.
Ritchie v Royal Wolverhampton: Summary Judgment and QOCS [2026] EWCC 50 — QOCS. Brian Ritchie contracted Mycobacterium Chimaera following heart valve surgery at the defendant Trust's hospital. During his lifetime he pursued a product liability claim against the manufacturer of the relevant equipment. A May 2022 schedule valued that claim at £346,963.79. It included general damages, past and future care, a seven year reduction in life expectancy and a lost years claim.
QuidPay v OpenPayd: Conduct, GHR and Payments on Account [2026] EWHC 2199 (Ch) — Detailed Assessment. QuidPay issued proceedings and an injunction application seeking, among other relief, the release of funds held by OpenPayd. Its case initially alleged that funds belonged beneficially to its customers and used that allegation to accuse OpenPayd of conduct said to be unlawful and tantamount to deceit. QuidPay also threatened a report to the Financial Conduct Authority and publicity.
LM1 v Seacroft: Medway Oil, a Struck-Out Bill and No Costs Order [2026] EWHC 2212 (Ch) — Detailed Assessment. The High Court applied Medway Oil to costs confined to a counterclaim and examined the consequences of a bill wrongly claiming the costs of the whole action. Although LM1 successfully restrained a winding-up petition, its lack of urgency and transparency after the bill was struck out led to no order for costs.
Baroness Lawrence v Associated Newspapers: Indemnity Costs [2026] EWHC 2207 (KB) — Detailed Assessment. The High Court ordered indemnity costs throughout after dismissing the claimants' privacy claims, but refused to cap Associated Newspapers' claimed costs of £34.48 million. Nicklin J ordered £9,544,355 on account and confirmed that the defendant must still prove its recoverable costs on detailed assessment.
Car-Wizard v Vixen: Budget Revision and Part 36 Costs [2026] EWHC 2177 (Ch) — Detailed Assessment. Car-Wizard Ltd v Vixen Surface Treatments Limited [2026] EWHC 2177 (Ch) confirms that a costs budget may be revised promptly during an adjourned trial when unforeseen additional work is a significant development. The court also applied the full Part 36 consequences, awarded indemnity costs throughout and ordered a £214,000 payment on account.
Fuschillo v Johnson & Johnson (No 2): Costs Budgeting in Group Litigation [2026] — Costs Budgeting. Mrs Justice Hill ordered costs budgeting in the Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder group litigation, holding that six-monthly costs reports would provide transparency without control. The court also allocated Opus 2 charges and addressed the QOCS risk of an abuse-based strike out.
M L Technology v BEAT Sam: £4m Costs but No Overall Winner [2026] — Detailed Assessment. In M L Technology Limited v BEAT Sam Limited [2026] EWHC 2142 (Ch), the High Court held that neither side was the overall winner after intellectual property litigation which generated total costs of about £4 million. Mr Daniel Alexander KC made no order as to costs, refused a retrospective costs budget increase and explained why any payment on account would have required a substantially more conservative approach than the usual percentages.
Bassey v Whittaker: No Budget Variation Without a Significant Development [2026] — Costs Budgeting. In Bassey v Whittaker [2026] EWHC 2126 (KB), Cavanagh J held that, absent agreement, a costs budget cannot be revised under CPR 3.15A without a significant development. The decision gives practical guidance on foreseeability, Precedent T and the later good reason test.
MJS Projects: Mediation Refusal and Expert Costs [2026] — Detailed Assessment. In MJS Projects v RPS [2026] EWHC 884 (TCC), the court held that the successful defendant’s reasoned refusal to mediate was not an unreasonable failure to engage in ADR. Serious problems with the claimant’s expert evidence did not cross the high threshold for indemnity costs, and standard basis costs were ordered.
Dentons: Appeal Costs and a £200,000 Payment [2026] — Detailed Assessment. In Dentons UK and Middle East LLP v SRA [2026] EWCA Civ 655, the Court of Appeal held that the regulator’s special first-instance costs protection does not extend to appeals. Dentons received 65% of its appeal costs, but only £200,000 on account against expenditure of £793,679.60.
Ward: Costs Where Both Sides Were Dishonest [2026] — Detailed Assessment. In Ward v Donnellan [2026] EWCA Civ 729, the Court of Appeal overturned a no order for costs decision where the successful parties and the unsuccessful claimant had both advanced dishonest evidence. The replacement orders preserved costs consequences for the claimant’s failed case while preventing recovery for the winners’ own dishonesty.
Smithstone: Part 36 Liability Offers Can Be Effective [2026] — Fixed Costs. In Smithstone v Tranmoor Primary School [2026] EWCA Civ 13, the Court of Appeal held that a genuine 90:10 liability offer can engage CPR 36.17 and overruled Mundy on that point. The claimant still recovered only fixed costs because the global settlement contained no admission or determination of liability.
TM Eye: Recovering the Costs of a Costs Appeal [2026] — Criminal Costs. In R (TM Eye Ltd) v Dean Hall [2026] EWHC 1193 (SCCO), Costs Judge Leonard reduced a successful private prosecutor’s appeal costs claim from about £45,052 to £15,000. The represented company could not recover its director’s time alongside its Costs Lawyer’s charges, and unreliable evidence generated further reductions.

Subscribe to the RSS feed | Discuss a costs issue