KA-2023-000225 - [2025] EWHC 2112 (KB)

The Appellant submits that the Respondent’s argument in relation to the late production of the request was fully considered in my Judgment. I referred to the fact that it had been served on the Respondent nine months before the hearing before the Costs Judge and was similar or identical to those in other cases. I also noted that at the hearing both parties appeared to have proceeded on the basis that the Judge knew what information was requested. I further observed that the Respondent had received the request in advance and took no point about a procedural failing before the Judge; the document could simply have been shown to him at the hearing. The Appellant contends that any failure to include the request in the original appeal bundle had no costs consequences because the Respondent had received them months prior, addressed their substance in its skeleton argument for the appeal, and their late inclusion did not lengthen or otherwise alter the course of the appeal.