Background
This judgment concerns consequential matters arising from the High Court’s prior ruling ([2026] EWHC 1749 (Ch)) on the claimants’ application to re-amend their Particulars of Claim. The underlying dispute involves a valuation matter involving Colliers International Valuation UK LLP. The claimants—comprised of ICG Manager Limited, ICG Longbow Senior Debt Investments No.1 LLP, Bupa Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd, and Apex Group Fiduciary Services Limited—sought to amend their pleadings multiple times during the proceedings.
A significant issue in the procedural history was the shifting presentation of allegations. The initial version of the amended pleadings (Version 1) appeared to contain allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, though the claimants’ counsel later clarified that no such allegation was intended. Subsequent versions (notably Version 3) presented at the hearing differed materially from the version originally attached to the application.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Halpern held that the claimants were substantially successful in their re-amendment application, obtaining most (but not all) of the relief sought. However, he found that the claimants’ conduct—particularly the inconsistent and evolving versions of their pleadings—had increased their own costs and caused the defendant to incur unnecessary costs in defending against allegations that remained unclear.
On the issue of costs, the judge rejected the defendant’s submission that it was the successful party. Although the claimants achieved their primary objective, the judge awarded them only half of their claimed costs (£19,300 inclusive of VAT, summarily assessed) rather than the full amount (£38,601.50). The defendant remains entitled to recover its costs occasioned by the amendments themselves, but the unnecessary costs incurred in dealing with earlier abortive drafts were reflected in the reduction of the claimant’s award.
The judge directed that further procedural matters, including consequential amendments to the Defence and Reply and any further witness statements, be resolved at a Pre-Trial Review scheduled for 23–24 July 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Claimants bear cost consequences for inefficient pleading practices, even when ultimately successful on the re-amendment application.
- Courts will apportion costs where a party’s conduct causes unnecessary expense for opponents, regardless of overall success on the substantive application.
- Multiple iterations of pleadings and ambiguity about the legal basis of allegations can justify cost sanctions.
- Procedural conduct—not just substantive outcomes—influences costs awards.
Why It Matters
This judgment reinforces the English courts’ commitment to efficient case management and to deterring parties from wasting resources through poor pleading practices. Even a substantially successful amendment application does not guarantee full recovery of costs if the claimant’s own conduct has increased costs for both parties. The judgment serves as a practical warning to litigants and their advisors that consistency and clarity in pleadings are not merely desirable but economically essential—poor drafting and revision practices will be reflected in adverse cost orders.
For practitioners, the decision illustrates that costs awards are not binary. Courts will calibrate relief to account for partial success combined with procedural misconduct, reflecting a nuanced approach to promoting efficient dispute resolution.