CA-2025-001239 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1106

After the handdown of the main judgment, consequential matters were largely agreed between the parties. In particular, it was agreed that the Plan Companies should pay the costs of Saipem and Samsung of the Plan Companies’ applications under Part 26A at first instance, and of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

However, the parties were unable to agree the amount of an interim payment on account of those costs, which are very significant. The total amount claimed by Saipem and Samsung was initially £6,231,195, of which an interim payment of about 60% was sought, amounting to £3.75 million.

At first, the breakdown provided by Saipem and Samsung to support this claim simply listed the total amounts billed by their solicitors, Mayer Brown; by counsel (Andrew Thornton KC, Tom Smith KC and Jon Colclough); and by their financial advisers, Alvarez & Marsal.

The Plan Companies objected that this was not a proper explanation or particularisation of the fees claimed. They contended that Saipem and Samsung should provide a detailed schedule of costs in accordance with Form N260, which is the form for use in relation to summary assessment of costs in fast track trials and hearings lasting no more than one day as required by CPR PD44 paragraph 9.5. Saipem and Samsung responded that they could not provide a schedule in Form N260 in the time available and that the same level of detail required for summary assessment was not necessary for the Court to be able to determine an amount to be paid on account of costs.

It is true that the CPR does not prescribe any particular information or form for determination of an interim payment on account of costs. Accordingly, by an order dated 8 July 2025, we directed that Saipem and Samsung, “serve and file a schedule of costs, providing sufficient detail for the Court to determine the amount of a payment on account”. We also set a timetable for the sequential filing of short written submissions.