This site uses cookies.

One Judge Can Summarily Assess The Costs Of Another Judge’s Costs Order - Nick McDonnell, Just Costs Solicitors

20/10/15. In Transformers And Rectifiers Ltd v Needs Ltd [2015] EWHC 1687 (TCC) (12 June 2015), Coulson J found that, in certain circumstances, a judge can summarily assess the costs arising out of a costs order made by a different judge.

Wasted costs orders were made by Edwards–Stuart J against a Defendant when it sought the adjournment of a trial. The Claimant argued the costs could be summarily assessed by another judge and the Defendant argued that they must be summarily assessed by the judge who made the orders.

Coulson J found that, the civil procedure rules as they stand now mean that there is no bar on a different judge summarily assessing costs. He found that the position may be different if the costs orders arose from a contested hearing and the assessment of costs depended on the views formed by a judge following submissions. But if orders are made following consideration of the papers for example (as was the case here) a different judge has precisely the same material available to him.

Coulson J emphasised the change to the CPR.r.44 PD 9.7 which now stated:

No summary assessment by a costs officer


The court awarding costs cannot make an order for a summary assessment of costs by a costs officer. If a summary assessment of costs is appropriate but the court awarding costs is unable to do so on the day, the court may give directions as to a further hearing before the same judge.”

The previous, pre-1 April 2013, corresponding PD (CPD 13.8) said “must” instead of “may.” With this, together with the addition of proportionality to the overriding objective, Coulson J found that, in certain circumstances, a judge should be capable of summarily assessing costs arising from orders made by a different judge.

The Defendant sought to rely on a Court of Appeal’s decision in Mahmood & Anr v Penrose & Others [2002] EWCA Civ 457. Coulson J distinguished that decision on the basis that case:-

1. Fell under the pre-1 April 2013 practice direction where the test was one of “must” instead of “may;”
2. Fell under the pre-1 April 2013 overriding objective that did not expressly require consideration of proportionality;
3. Followed a hearing;
4. Was one where the parties represented themselves and it was not clear if the Court had heard any argument;

Coulson J also found that it was unlikely that the Court of Appeal intended to lay down a principle to be followed in all subsequent cases.

Coulson J went on to summarily assess the costs arising from the orders made by Edwards-Stuart J.

Nick McDonnell is a Director, Northern Regional Manager and Costs Lawyer with Just Costs Solicitors.

Image ©

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.