QB-2022-000681 - [2025] EWHC 2744 (KB)

Discussion and decision

Although expressed as an application to vary the costs order made by Morris J, it is inextricably linked with the application to vary or revoke the security for costs order. In my judgment the Claimant has not established that there has been a material change of circumstances such as to warrant varying the order made by Morris J.

First, there has been no relevant and material change of circumstances since the order was made by Morris J. Stacey J expressly took into account the costs liability arising from the hearing before Morris J: see [55] of her judgment. Even if the Claimant is correct that it might recover on detailed assessment more than the guideline hourly rate used by Morris J when he made his payment on account of costs, it seems to me to be wrong in principle for that to be a basis to vary the order when that costs liability was expressly taken into account by Stacey J.

Secondly, it is of note that at the hearing before Stacey J it was not argued by the Claimant that the court should vary the costs order made by Morris J.

Thirdly, insofar as the application to vary the order by Morris J is linked to the application to vary the Stacey J Order, I have already rejected the argument that the withdrawal of the non-admission in paragraph 44.3(i) of the Defence amounts to a material change of circumstances because the Claimant can now establish that there is a strong probability of success.

Fourthly, and without prejudice to the foregoing, I see no reason here to depart from the general rule that detailed assessment should only be ordered at the conclusion of the proceedings (see Shergill, cited above). Detailed assessment would be lengthy, costly and disruptive of the proceedings, and would cause prejudice to the Defendants. As Mr Maguire accepted, it might well lead to the loss of the trial window.