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.

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.
Winros: CFA Termination and Unjust Enrichment [2026] — Funding & CFAs. In The Winros Partnership v Global Energy Horizons Corporation [2026] EWCA Civ 654, the Court of Appeal held that solicitors could not use unjust enrichment to recreate a fee entitlement after choosing common law termination instead of the express CFA termination clause. The bills remained assessed at nil.
MT Construction: Default Costs Certificate Stands [2026] — Detailed Assessment. In MT Construction Ltd v Frieze [2026] EWHC 813 (SCCO), the court refused to set aside a default costs certificate where no written extension had been agreed and the paying parties failed to show a good reason for assessment to continue. The certificate was varied only to remove recoverable VAT.
HD v North Devon: Retainers, Strike-Out and CPR 44.11 [2026] — Solicitor & Client. In HD v North Devon Healthcare Trust [2026] EWHC 2009 (SCCO), the court struck out six detailed assessment claims after the solicitor abandoned the clients and could no longer enforce the retainers. The judgment also orders repayment of £92,000 received on account and imposes personal indemnity costs under CPR 44.11.
Deductions from Damages: A Practical Guide — Practice Guides. A practical guide to court approval and assessment of CFA success fees, ATE premiums and solicitor and client shortfalls from damages recovered for children and protected parties.
CPR 45.29I: Disbursements Under the Old Fixed Costs Regime — Practice Guides. What old CPR 45.29I allows in ex-protocol fixed costs claims, why it still governs pre-October 2023 accidents, and the case law on the 'particular feature of the dispute' test: Aldred v Cham, Santiago v MIB and the MedCo fee caps.
Swann v Slater & Gordon: The 25% Cap After Richardson and Perrett — Solicitors Act 1974. Where Swann v Slater & Gordon stands after Richardson [2025] EWHC 1220 (SCCO) and Perrett v Wolferstans [2026] EWHC 50 (SCCO): the 25% cap secures informed consent, but success fees and blended rates remain vulnerable.
Abbott v Ministry of Defence: £2.5m Interim Costs Payment [2026] EWHC 2083 (KB) — Detailed Assessment. In David Abbott & Ors v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 2083 (KB), the High Court ordered the Ministry of Defence to pay 60% of the claimants' costs after a trial of generic issues and two test claims. Mr Justice Garnham then ordered an interim payment of £2,515,194.95, calculated as 50% of that adjusted entitlement after £1.355 million already paid. The judgment shows how courts assess success in group litigation and why reliable costs evidence matters under CPR 44.2(8).
Royal Holloway v QLaw: No Present Entitlement to Executor Fees [2026] EWHC 2090 (SCCO) — Solicitor & Client. The Senior Courts Costs Office held that QLaw had no present right to charge £53,187.60 for its director's services as a professional executor because the will contained no charging clause and the co-executor had not agreed in writing under section 29(2) of the Trustee Act 2000. The court left open a possible application for remuneration under its inherent jurisdiction.
Winehouse v Parry: £963,852.88 Interim Payments on Account [2026] — Detailed Assessment. The High Court ordered indemnity costs after the total failure of Mitchell Winehouse’s claim and required combined interim payments on account of £963,852.88, calculated at 90% of budgeted costs and 75% of unbudgeted costs pending detailed assessment.
Importers Service v Aliotta: £608,755.64 Interim Payment on Account [2026] — Detailed Assessment. The High Court ordered indemnity costs and an interim payment on account of £608,755.64, applying 90% to budgeted costs and 60% to other costs, and awarded interest from when the claimants’ costs were billed and paid.
Orton v Barclays: CPR 27.14 Unreasonable Behaviour Costs [2026] EWCA Civ 1025 — Fixed Costs. In Steven Orton v Barclays Bank UK PLC, the Court of Appeal in 2026 allowed an appeal against a small claims costs order and gave important guidance on CPR 27.14(2)(g). The decision confirms that unreasonable behaviour must be assessed against the firm starting point of costs neutrality. Discontinuance, unsuccessful pursuit of an arguable claim and failure to accept an opponent's ultimatum do not, without more, justify an adverse costs order.
Court Fees from 13 July 2026: What Costs Practitioners Need to Update — Practice Guides. A practical guide to the July 2026 civil, family and Court of Protection fees most relevant to costs-only proceedings, detailed assessment and related applications.
Cubic Transportation Systems Ltd v Transport for London: Payments on Account of Costs [2026] EWHC 211 (TCC) — Detailed Assessment. The TCC ordered £720,866.85 on account of costs after assessing a safe minimum recovery, while reserving an interested party's separate and insufficiently confined costs claim.
Maidens v Building Supplies Distribution Ltd: Interim Applications in Provisional Assessment [2026] EWCC 25 — Detailed Assessment. The court retained jurisdiction to hear procedural applications before provisional assessment, but dismissed an attempt to determine Ainsworth points separately from the streamlined paper process.
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP: Supervised Delegation Is Lawful [2026] EWCA Civ 369 — Detailed Assessment. The Court of Appeal held that unauthorised staff may perform delegated litigation tasks where an authorised individual retains genuine responsibility and proper supervision and control.
Ward v Rai: Late Points of Dispute and the Costs Judge's Discretion [2026] EWCA Civ 816 — Detailed Assessment. In Ward v Rai, the Court of Appeal in 2026 considered whether a Costs Judge had been entitled to preserve a defective point of dispute and admit a late schedule during detailed assessment, rather than strike out the challenge. The decision in [2026] EWCA Civ 816 confirms both the specificity required by Practice Direction 47 and the breadth of the first instance court's case management discretion.
O'Sullivan v Trading 212: £500,000 of Costs on a £5,000 Claim and Departing from the Budget [2026] EWCC 32 — costs budgeting. A claim worth a few thousand pounds generated over £500,000 in costs. The County Court found good reason under CPR 3.18 to depart downward from the defendant's approved budget and cut City hourly rates on proportionality grounds.
Evans v Fletchers Solicitors: Success Fee Disallowed for Failure to Investigate BTE Insurance [2026] EWHC 1523 (SCCO) — success fee. On a section 70 Solicitors Act assessment the SCCO disallowed a success fee of £30,365.13 in full, because the solicitor failed to make reasonable enquiries into the client's pre-existing BTE legal expenses insurance before signing him to a CFA.
Spicer v Greene King: 25% CFA Cap Is Not a Tariff [2026] EWCC 18 — Funding & CFAs. Spicer v Greene King confirms that the 25% CFA success fee cap is a maximum, not a tariff. District Judge Lumb reduced the success fee sought from a child's damages from £2,500 to £330 plus VAT and disallowed the ATE premium.
Magomedov v Rabinovich [2026] EWHC 962 (SCCO): No Jurisdiction in the SCCO to Order Security for Costs of the Detailed Assessment Hearing — Detailed Assessment. In the first reported decision of its kind, the Senior Courts Costs Office held that it has no jurisdiction under CPR 25 to order security for the costs of an inter partes detailed assessment hearing, and gave practical guidance on what such an assessment ought reasonably to cost.
Rigley v Zurich Insurance Co (UK) Ltd: Court Retains Jurisdiction Over Pending Fixed Costs Banding Reassignment Despite Part 36 Acceptance — Part 36. A County Court decision confirming that CPR 36.14(5)(b) preserves the court's jurisdiction to determine a pending complexity band reassignment application after a Part 36 offer has been accepted, with the court reassigning the claim from Band 2 to Band 1.

Subscribe to the RSS feed | Discuss a costs issue