J90PE914 and K00LU633 - [2025] EWHC 2076 (KB)

This is an unusual, informal, application made on behalf of the first defendant, Pheasantland Limited (“Pheasantland”), against the claimants, Abbotsley Limited and Ms Saunders, on her own part and as the sole director of Abbotsley Limited, for costs that it is said have been “wasted” by reason of the conduct of Ms Saunders.

In total, Pheasantland seek five additional days of refreshers together with an additional four days for the drafting of the written submissions. The reason for that request is that, despite the court sitting early and late, the fifteen-day trial (including a day for closing submissions) has already taken 19 days for the taking of evidence and another day for the giving of oral submissions. Additionally, given the minute detail in which issues have been canvassed with the witnesses, it is very clear that one day would not be sufficient for all submissions to be made and it has been agreed that written submissions are required. For the first defendant, having calculated the need to raise funds to cover a 15 day trial, a 20 day trial (including a day of submissions) together with an additional 4 days for written submissions, is a very heavy burden.

It was agreed between counsel and the court that there was no requirement for Pheasantland to make a formal application with respect to this issue. The claimants now say that Pheasantland have failed to identify the basis upon which such an application for costs can be made at this time before a final determination is made.

In this case, there has been a considerable amount of court time spent in preliminary applications brought by the claimants:

All the applications were brought on behalf of Ms Saunders by her directly instructed junior and leading counsel. Both the application to adjourn and the redaction application were very straightforward and easily dealt with. The application for “early determination” and the subsequent unsuccessful appeal were lengthy and complex matters which took a considerable amount of court time – both in court and also, so far as I was concerned, dealing with all the points raised in great detail. Similarly, the application to recuse, while misconceived and brought on the wrong legal test, still took a significant period of time. Costs have been ordered, dependent upon who was successful and who failed, taking into account the issues contained within CPR 44.2.