QuidPay v OpenPayd: Conduct, GHR and Payments on Account [2026] EWHC 2199 (Ch)

Detailed Assessment — 2026-08-19

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.

Overview

Date: 19 August 2026

Judge: Lance Ashworth KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Court: High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts, Business List (Chancery Division)

Claim number: BL-2026-000533

Citation: [2026] EWHC 2199 (Ch)

Nature of Proceedings: Judgment on costs and consequential matters following determination of a preliminary issue in a commercial dispute

Key Issues:

The costs of an injunction application where the eventual winner had abandoned unsustainable allegations and arguments
The appropriate percentage reduction for conduct and partial success
Payments on account where claimed hourly rates substantially exceeded the 2026 Guideline Hourly Rates
The distinction between an interim payment and the costs ultimately recoverable on detailed assessment
Compensatory interest on substantive sums withheld after the contractual termination date

---

The Background

Quidpay Finance Limited v Settlego Solutions Limited (trading as OpenPayd), decided in the High Court in 2026, provides practical guidance on conduct-based costs reductions, hourly rates above the Guideline Hourly Rates and the calculation of payments on account without prejudging detailed assessment.

The beneficial ownership case was abandoned shortly before the injunction hearing. Other contractual arguments also fell away. The remaining point was whether contractual provisions allowing OpenPayd to maintain a reserve survived termination. That issue was determined in QuidPay's favour in [2026] EWHC 1991 (Ch). OpenPayd did not seek permission to appeal.

The consequential judgment dealt with four matters: the costs of the injunction application, the parties' preliminary issue applications, the preliminary issue trial and interest on the substantive sums payable to QuidPay.

---

QuidPay Was the Winner, but Its Conduct Required a 35% Reduction

There had been no determination of the injunction application itself. Its costs had been reserved when the parties agreed instead to proceed through preliminary issues.

Lance Ashworth KC assessed who had won by comparing the practical outcome with the relief originally sought. QuidPay had obtained the release of the reserve monies, although by a different legal route. It had not obtained the lifting of the account suspension, but the agreements were due to terminate in any event. The judge held at [19] and [20] that QuidPay would have been the winner and that the starting point was an order for its costs.

That did not justify recovery of all its costs. At [22] and [23], the court found that the beneficial ownership claim was unsustainable, that the allegations and regulatory or publicity threats based on it should not have been made, and that the late abandonment of other contractual arguments had caused unnecessary costs.

The court rejected OpenPayd's proposed order that it should recover a proportion of its own costs for the earlier period. The cleaner order was a percentage reduction in QuidPay's recovery. QuidPay's proposed 20% reduction was too low. The court reduced its recoverable costs by 35%, leaving it entitled to 65% of its costs of the injunction application on the standard basis if not agreed.

The decision illustrates the flexibility of CPR 44.2. Overall success established the starting point, but unreasonable allegations, threats and abandoned issues materially changed the order.

---

Payment on Account Did Not Approve Rates Above the GHR

QuidPay's statement of costs for the injunction application totalled £290,722.50. Its draft order had sought a payment on account calculated at 60% of an assumed 80% recovery.

The court instead applied the 60% payment factor to the 65% costs award. This produced £113,381.78, calculated as 60% of 65% of £290,722.50.

The statement included rates up to 50% above the 2026 London 1 Guideline Hourly Rates. OpenPayd had not challenged those rates at this stage, but the judge expressly stated at [26] that the payment on account did not bind the costs judge. OpenPayd remained free to argue on detailed assessment that the rates were too high.

That point is important. A payment on account is a reasonable provisional sum ordered before the recoverable costs have been finally assessed. It is not approval of the bill, its hourly rates or its component parts. The costs judge retains the full assessment function.

---

Rates at 235% of the GHR Reduced the Payment on Account

The parties had each issued preliminary issue applications. They agreed that OpenPayd was the winner and entitled to its costs. OpenPayd's statement totalled £15,503.10, of which it sought 60%, namely £9,301.86, on account.

The court rejected QuidPay's criticisms of OpenPayd's conduct, but accepted its challenge to the rates. OpenPayd's rates were some 235% of the Guideline Hourly Rates. The matter was urgent and complicated and had international elements, but it concerned a claim of around £9 million.

The judge considered paragraph 29 of the Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs and JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky [2025] BCC 393. Even in the more complex setting of worldwide freezing orders, indemnity costs and BVI restoration issues, rates substantially above the guidelines had been regarded as excessive.

The court's conclusion at [32] was direct:

> "In my judgment the hourly rates claimed are excessive"

Rather than determine the final recoverable rates, the court fixed the payment on account at £7,000 and left the issue open for detailed assessment. This was not a final assessment of OpenPayd's costs. It was a cautious interim figure reflecting the substantial rates issue.

---

The Preliminary Issue Trial

The parties agreed that OpenPayd should pay QuidPay's costs of the preliminary issue trial on the standard basis if not agreed. They also agreed a payment on account of 60%, producing an order for £110,731.70.

The three costs outcomes therefore differed according to the circumstances of each part of the litigation:

QuidPay recovered 65% of its injunction application costs, with £113,381.78 on account
OpenPayd recovered its preliminary issue application costs, with £7,000 on account because of the rates issue
QuidPay recovered its preliminary issue trial costs, with the agreed £110,731.70 on account

The judgment shows why costs of distinct applications and stages should be analysed separately. The identity of the overall winner does not answer every costs question.

---

Interest on the Substantive Sums

The earlier order required OpenPayd to pay QuidPay €2,453,717.89 and £7 million. The sums should have been paid when the agreements ended on 27 May 2026 but were not paid until 7 August 2026.

QuidPay sought interest at 5.75%. OpenPayd argued that interest should run only from judgment and at 1% above base rate. The court considered Carrasco v Johnson [2018] EWCA Civ 87 and Jones v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2014] EWCA Civ 363. It followed the later decision in Carrasco and treated interest as compensation for being kept out of money rather than as a punishment or removal of profit.

There was no evidence of the borrowing rate applicable to a business with QuidPay's general attributes. The court selected 1% above base rate, giving a total rate of 4.75%, and awarded £58,301.37 and €20,436.44, subject to the parties checking the calculations.

---

Practical Implications

For Costs Lawyers

1. Apply conduct reductions before calculating the payment. QuidPay's payment was not 60% of its whole statement. It was 60% of the 65% share left after the conduct reduction.

2. A payment on account does not approve the hourly rates. Even where rates are not challenged at the consequential hearing, the order need not bind the costs judge or prevent a full rates challenge on detailed assessment.

3. Very high rates can affect the interim figure immediately. OpenPayd's rates at some 235% of the GHR led the court to reduce the requested payment from £9,301.86 to £7,000 while leaving final assessment open.

4. Do not mistake an interim allowance for assessed costs. The £7,000 figure was a payment on account, not the final amount recoverable. Points of dispute and replies should preserve that distinction.

5. Analyse each application separately. The injunction application, preliminary issue applications and trial produced different winners and different payments. A single overall costs label would have obscured the correct result.

For Litigation Practitioners

1. Unsustainable allegations can carry a substantial price. QuidPay remained the winner but lost 35% of its costs because of allegations, threats and abandoned arguments which caused unnecessary work.

2. Regulatory and publicity threats require a sound basis. Combining serious accusations with threats to report or publicise them may influence the costs order even where the party ultimately succeeds.

3. Prepare the payment calculation transparently. The statement total, percentage entitlement and payment factor should be shown as separate steps. This makes the proposed order easier to test.

4. Evidence is needed for a commercial interest rate. A broad Bank of England measure did not establish the rate applicable to a business with QuidPay's attributes. The absence of evidence led to 1% above base rate.

---

Conclusion

QuidPay v OpenPayd is a useful worked example of the discretion available on costs and payments on account. Success made QuidPay the starting-point winner on the injunction application, but its abandoned case and serious unsupported allegations justified a 35% reduction.

The judgment is equally useful on hourly rates. Rates above the guidelines did not prevent a payment on account, but nor did the interim order approve them. Where rates reached some 235% of the GHR, the court adopted a lower interim figure and preserved the issue for detailed assessment. Mackenzie Costs' analysis is that payments on account should be treated as cautious provisional awards, not as abbreviated assessments.

---

Citation: Quidpay Finance Limited v Settlego Solutions Limited (T/A OpenPayd) [2026] EWHC 2199 (Ch)

Full judgment available at: The National Archives

Related Specialist Support

Costs Budgeting and Detailed Assessment: Precedent H, dispute documents, negotiations and assessment strategy.
Bills of Costs: Clear, defensible traditional and electronic bills prepared for recovery.
Costs Lawyer Support: Direct help with costs procedure, strategy, drafting and advocacy.