Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 2885 (Ch)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
CHANCERY DIVISION 
MANCHESTER APPEAL CENTRE
ON APPEAL from the County Court at PRESTON

The Royal Courts of Justice
Rolls Building EC4A 1NL

Date: 22/11/2016

Before :

MR JUSTICE NORRIS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	(1) STODDAY LAND LIMITED
(2) RIPWAY PROPERTIES LIMITED	Appellants	
	
- and –
		
	WILLIAM MARSLAND PYE	Respondent and Claimant	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Written submissions from Atkinson & Firth for the Appellants
Written submissions from Mr Jamie Sutherland (instructed by Loxley) for the Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment Approved
Mr Justice Norris:

1.	It is agreed that (in accordance with the general rule) I should order the Appellants jointly and severally to pay the Respondent his costs of the appeal. It is agreed that the assessment of those costs should be conducted on the standard basis.

2.	There is a dispute as to whether the Respondent’s costs should include the costs of some written submissions and of a witness statement filed in relation to the application for permission. I hold that they do include the costs of the witness statement and the supplementary submissions (but nothing else). My order granting permission provided that the costs of the permission application should be costs in the appeal. That swept up the Respondent’s costs of the material to which I referred in my Order. The Appellants sought to amend their grounds of appeal to include an allegation that the case had been improperly transferred from the High Court to the County Court: the witness statement and the supplementary written submissions were directed to that. This justified (and justifies) a limited departure from the normal approach to the respondent’s costs at the permission stage.

3.	There is a dispute about whether I should refer the costs to a detailed assessment, or conduct a summary assessment. The bill is modest. The Appellants oppose a summary assessment but do not advance any justification for a detailed assessment other than that they would not have to pay costs until the conclusion of the assessment process. But this overlooks the presumption in CPR 44.2(8): where a detailed assessment is ordered the Court will order a payment on account “unless there is good reason not to do so”.

4.	In order to save expense and to deal with the costs question in a way which is both proportionate to the amount of money involved and expeditious I will undertake a summary assessment.

5.	I assess the costs in the sum of £14,375. In reaching this sum I have taken into account the reasonableness and proportionality of some 8.5 hours spent in communication with the client on an appeal which concerned only points of law, the need to remove some costs relating to the preparation of written submissions, the elimination of duplicated work (e.g. where the solicitor reviewed the work of Counsel or where both solicitor and Counsel reviewed the draft judgment), and the sum requested as a payment on account. I have no concerns over the rates charged.

6.	Payment will be due 28 days after the date on which the order is sealed.

7.	This judgment will be formally handed down on my behalf in London at 2.00pm on 15 November 2016.