Ravengate Estates Ltd v Horizon Housing Group Ltd & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 16
[1]This judgment deals with one point arising as to costs, consequential upon the dismissal of this appeal. The parties are agreed that, in the light of the dismissal of the appeal, the appropriate order as to costs is that the appellant should pay the respondent’s costs, to be assessed if not agreed. The one point on which there is disagreement is as to whether or not there should be an interim payment of the respondent’s costs. The respondent seeks such a payment in the sum of £15,000. In support of that application it has submitted a schedule of costs. With the exception of one sum exceeding £3,000 for a surveyor, there appears at first blush to be nothing particularly excessive about that schedule. The surveyor’s costs are puzzling; we cannot see why surveyor’s costs were necessary or appropriate for the purposes of this appeal. At any rate, there is a serious question mark over the recoverability of that part of the costs.[2]That brings the costs down to a sum a little over £20,000. Were it not for the factor which I shall mention in a moment, based on that bill, we would have been prepared to order an interim payment of £12,000 - £13,000. However, we are told that there are outstanding costs issues in relating to the hearing below. At the trial the defendant/respondent was ordered to pay costs up to 30th January 2006 on a standard basis, with the appellant/plaintiff paying the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis thereafter. The assessment arising out of those orders has yet to be completed. Mr Knox QC for the appellant tells us that it is considered that there will be a balance due on that order to the appellant in a sum of about £10,000. We have had no information to back that up, but assume for the purposes of this judgment that there is a significant chance that the appellant will be owed some costs as a result of the hearing below. In the light of that, and bearing in mind the relatively limited sums which we would otherwise have been minded to order by way of an interim payment for the costs of the appeal, it seems to us that the fair course is not to upset or distort the flow of payments from one party to another as a result of the overall assessment but to decline to make an order for an interim payment. This is not a case in which it can be seen that on any footing the successful respondent is going to end up with a large sum when all the other liabilities have been netted off.Lord Justice Mummery:
[3]I agree.Lord Justice Jacob:
[4]I also agree.
Cited in 1 later judgment