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

The starting point is to consider what would have been the appropriate costs order had the Appellant succeeded on the Part 18 application in circumstances where (as was the case) he lost on the disclosure application; permission to appeal having been refused on this point. Thus, in effect and as the Respondent submits, the Appellant achieved a "win and a loss" within the same hearing, which points towards the appropriate outcome being no order as to costs. The amount of time and resource devoted to the arguments in relation to disclosure, reflected in the Judgment below, appear to me to be at least as significant as those which were directed towards the Part 18 request. If an issues-based cost order had been made, then parity would likely have been the outcome. If some further encouragement was needed to reach the conclusion that the Respondent contends for, then that can be found in the fact that the Appellant's statement of costs for the hearing below was not served prior to that hearing, a clear contravention of CPR 44 PD.9.5(4). The schedule was dated 17 July 2025, nearly a year and ten months after the hearing date; and an unexplained breach of mandatory rules. I therefore conclude that there should be no order as to costs in respect of the hearing before the Costs Judge (as set out above there will be an order for reimbursement of the costs paid by the Appellant to the Respondent in respect of the hearing below).