Costs – Interest – Claimants succeeding in action against defendant for professional negligence – Extent of negligence and damages awarded less than claimed – Complex costs orders granting claimants part of costs and ordering to pay part of defendant’s costs – Whether interest to be awarded on costs payable by defendant – Application allowed
The claimants brought an action for professional negligence against the defendant in connection with the leasing of land for a car park for Bournemouth International Airport. A finding of negligence was made, although not to the extent alleged by the claimants, and damages were awarded in a lesser sum than that originally claimed. Complex orders were made as to the proportion of costs to be paid by each party, the issue of costs going to a detailed assessment if not agreed: see [2007] EWHC 999 (QB); [2007] 3 EGLR 153 and [2007] EWHC 424 (QB); [2007] PLSCS 70. A further hearing was held to determine whether the court should make an order under CPR 44.3(6)(g) for the payment of interest on the costs that, following agreement or assessment, were found to be due to the claimants. It was agreed that the relevant date from which to calculate interest was April 2007.
The claimants contended that the aim in awarding interest was generally compensatory and that since the first claimant had incurred substantial interest charges in funding the action, it was appropriate to compensate him. The defendant advanced no reason of principle as to why interest could not be awarded, but submitted that it was not the practice to make such orders.
Held: The application was allowed.
In the light of the authorities, it was possible to make an order of the kind requested: Bim Kemi AB v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd (Costs) [2003] EWCA Civ 889, Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 9) [2004] EWHC 63 (Ch) and Lloyd v Svenby (Costs) [2006] EWHC 576 (QB) applied. It was appropriate to make the order. Although the claimants had obtained orders for the payment by the defendants of part only of their costs, this could be dealt with by awarding interest only on whatever net sum was found to be due to them. That took account of the fact that the claimants had obtained orders for only part of their costs and had been ordered to pay part of the defendant’s costs.
Anthony Speight QC (instructed by Stockler Brunton) appeared for the claimants; John Gallagher (instructed by Williams Holden Cooklin Gibbons LLP) appeared for the defendant.
Sally Dobson, barrister
