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

The judgment of Morris J and his consequential costs order

As noted above, Stacey J expressly took into account the costs order that had been made by Morris J. That order was made consequent to his judgment on 6 March 2024 on a preliminary issue in these proceedings: [2024] EWHC 484 (KB). The judgment concerned the Defendants’ application to strike out the proceedings on the grounds that Mr Hiob (who is the provisional administrator of Craft) did not have authority to act on behalf of Craft in these proceedings. That application was rejected by Morris J after a hearing that took over six days.

On 21 March 2024, Morris J made an order consequent to that judgment having considered written submissions from the parties in respect of costs. Morris J ordered that the Defendants should pay the Claimant’s costs of the application, such costs to be the subject of detailed assessment if not agreed. In his reasons section of the Order, Morris J rejected the Claimant’s argument that there should be a summary assessment of costs for the reasons that had been advanced in the Defendants’ written submissions.

Morris J ordered that the Defendants should within 21 days pay the sum of £144,000 to the Claimant on account of those costs. In his reasons he noted that there “should be a conservative approach to the amount of any payment on account, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 18 to 24 of [the Defendants’] submissions.” In those paragraphs the Defendants had re-calculated the Claimant’s costs by reference to the relevant guideline hourly rates rather than the £700 per hour (Grade A) and £500 per hour (Grade B) rates that had been claimed. The recalculated costs totaled £287,832.50 (rather than the £527,436 that had been claimed). The Defendants argued that the court should award no more than 50% of the guideline-corrected rate, i.e. £144,000.