E Co [a pseudonym] v Q [a pseudonym] (No 5)

The case before the court involved a dispute between E Co and Q. The matter was complex, encompassing issues related to costs incurred during a principal hearing and a subsequently re-opened hearing. The court was asked to adjudicate on various claims for costs, including party/party costs, indemnity costs under the principles in Calderbank v Calderbank, interest on a party's costs, and costs on a gross sum basis. The central legal issue was whether certain conduct by the parties warranted a departure from the general rule that costs follow the event.

The court commenced by examining the nature of the claims for costs and the principles applicable to each. It considered the conduct of both parties throughout the proceedings, assessing whether any actions were egregious enough to justify a deviation from the usual cost allocation rule. The court found that while both parties had engaged in conduct that could be considered vexatious, the overall conduct did not reach the threshold that would warrant such a departure. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in making such a decision, ultimately determining that the conduct did not warrant a departure from the general rule.

As a result of this finding, the court ruled that costs should follow the event. This meant that the successful party would be entitled to recover the costs of both the principal and re-opened hearings, along with interest on those costs. The court also considered the claim for indemnity costs but found that the principles in Calderbank v Calderbank did not apply. The court declined to award costs on a gross sum basis, adhering to the usual practice of awarding costs on an itemised basis. The court's decision was grounded in the need to balance the interests of both parties while adhering to established legal principles.

The final orders of the court reflected its reasoning. E Co was awarded costs of both the principal and re-opened hearings, along with interest on those costs. The claim for indemnity costs was dismissed, as was the request for costs on a gross sum basis. The court's decision was clear and based on a thorough analysis of the applicable legal principles and the conduct of the parties.