Legal Updates
The latest costs case law and practice developments affecting legal costs in England and Wales.
Latest costs case notes
Case analysis from Mackenzie Costs, the regulated costs practice behind this platform.
3173 Bidco v Roberts: Costs of Failed ENE [2026]
In 3173 Bidco Limited & Anor v Christopher James Roberts & Anor [2026] EWHC 2312 (Comm), the High Court considered who should bear the costs of a failed early neutral evaluation (ENE). HHJ Pearce ordered costs in the case despite finding that the defendants' failure to plead their case fully was the immediate cause of the ENE's failure. The judgment explains the caution required before imposing a separate costs liability for an unsuccessful ENE.
Read the full noteHalabi v Gaymer: Non-Party Costs Against a Director [2026] EWHC 2269 (Ch)
The High Court upheld a non-party costs order against a director who controlled company litigation for personal and family purposes. The required personal benefit need not be financial, but control or funding alone remains insufficient.
Read the full noteLM1 v Seacroft: Medway Oil, a Struck-Out Bill and No Costs Order [2026] EWHC 2212 (Ch)
The High Court applied Medway Oil to costs confined to a counterclaim and examined the consequences of a bill wrongly claiming the costs of the whole action. Although LM1 successfully restrained a winding-up petition, its lack of urgency and transparency after the bill was struck out led to no order for costs.
Read the full noteBaroness Lawrence v Associated Newspapers: Indemnity Costs [2026] EWHC 2207 (KB)
The High Court ordered indemnity costs throughout after dismissing the claimants' privacy claims, but refused to cap Associated Newspapers' claimed costs of £34.48 million. Nicklin J ordered £9,544,355 on account and confirmed that the defendant must still prove its recoverable costs on detailed assessment.
Read the full noteQuidPay v OpenPayd: Conduct, GHR and Payments on Account [2026] EWHC 2199 (Ch)
QuidPay issued proceedings and an injunction application seeking, among other relief, the release of funds held by OpenPayd. Its case initially alleged that funds belonged beneficially to its customers and used that allegation to accuse OpenPayd of conduct said to be unlawful and tantamount to deceit. QuidPay also threatened a report to the Financial Conduct Authority and publicity.
Read the full noteRitchie v Royal Wolverhampton: Summary Judgment and QOCS [2026] EWCC 50
Brian Ritchie contracted Mycobacterium Chimaera following heart valve surgery at the defendant Trust's hospital. During his lifetime he pursued a product liability claim against the manufacturer of the relevant equipment. A May 2022 schedule valued that claim at £346,963.79. It included general damages, past and future care, a seven year reduction in life expectancy and a lost years claim.
Read the full noteCar-Wizard v Vixen: Budget Revision and Part 36 Costs [2026] EWHC 2177 (Ch)
Car-Wizard Ltd v Vixen Surface Treatments Limited [2026] EWHC 2177 (Ch) confirms that a costs budget may be revised promptly during an adjourned trial when unforeseen additional work is a significant development. The court also applied the full Part 36 consequences, awarded indemnity costs throughout and ordered a £214,000 payment on account.
Read the full noteM L Technology v BEAT Sam: £4m Costs but No Overall Winner [2026]
In M L Technology Limited v BEAT Sam Limited [2026] EWHC 2142 (Ch), the High Court held that neither side was the overall winner after intellectual property litigation which generated total costs of about £4 million. Mr Daniel Alexander KC made no order as to costs, refused a retrospective costs budget increase and explained why any payment on account would have required a substantially more conservative approach than the usual percentages.
Read the full noteBassey v Whittaker: No Budget Variation Without a Significant Development [2026]
In Bassey v Whittaker [2026] EWHC 2126 (KB), Cavanagh J held that, absent agreement, a costs budget cannot be revised under CPR 3.15A without a significant development. The decision gives practical guidance on foreseeability, Precedent T and the later good reason test.
Read the full note