Background
This judgment determined the costs consequences of the court’s earlier ruling in [2026] EWHC 2284 (Comm). In that ruling, the court dismissed the claim against the third defendant, Marco Mandelli, on summary judgment. The parties agreed that Mandelli was the overall winner and entitled to a substantial costs order, but disputed the extent of any reduction, the basis of assessment, and the amount and timing of a payment on account.
Mandelli had initially represented himself before instructing Judge Sykes Frixou and counsel. Although his summary-judgment application succeeded, his separate applications alleging abuse of process and procedural noncompliance failed. The latter applications had separate factual and legal foundations and materially increased the costs incurred during the represented period.
The Court’s Holding
The court awarded Mandelli 100% of his recoverable costs for the period in which he acted in person and 75% of his costs for the period in which he was represented, including the costs of all applications. The 25% reduction reflected the failure of the distinct abuse-of-process and procedural-noncompliance applications, while giving primary weight to the successful summary-judgment application.
The costs were ordered to be assessed on the standard basis, not the indemnity basis. The court held that summary disposal of the claim did not itself establish the highly unreasonable conduct required for indemnity costs. It also found that the claim had not been unreasonably persisted in and that, apart from the acknowledged failure to comply with the pre-action protocol, the claimants’ conduct did not take the case outside the norm. The claimants were ordered to pay £19,400 on account by 4 p.m. on 25 September 2026.
Key Takeaways
- An overall winner may receive less than all of its costs when separate applications materially increased expenditure but failed.
- Summary judgment against a weak or hopeless claim does not, without more, justify assessment on the indemnity basis.
- A claimed inability to pay will not necessarily justify additional time where no supporting financial evidence or workable payment proposal is provided.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the court’s broad discretion under CPR 44.2 to reflect mixed success through a percentage costs order rather than mechanically counting issues or making separate issue-based awards. Successful litigants may therefore face a meaningful reduction when unsuccessful alternative applications generated substantial additional work.
It also reinforces that standard-basis costs remain the usual order following summary judgment. Indemnity costs require conduct or circumstances outside the norm, assessed in the round rather than inferred retrospectively from the weakness or early dismissal of the losing party’s case.