High Court assesses costs in medical company dispute

12 Feb 2025Court Report

The High Court evaluated detailed costs objections in a dispute involving a medical company and multiple defendants

High Court assesses costs in medical company dispute

The High Court of Justice, Senior Courts Costs Office, recently handed down a judgment in a detailed costs assessment involving Dr Oluremi Agbaje and The Robert Frew Medical Company Limited, among other defendants. The case, presided over by Costs Judge Nagalingam, focused on item-by-item objections raised during the assessment process.

The judgment, delivered remotely, addressed objections outlined in the electronic bill's tab 16, specifically column AC. Judge Nagalingam opted to review each challenged item without filtering, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the context surrounding each objection.

Throughout the proceedings, it was noted that certain objections lacked corresponding 'Point of Dispute No.' in column AB, despite being clearly set out in column AC. This discrepancy was addressed by referencing the associated challenged item number and column AB, ensuring accurate application of challenges to the correct items.

The judgment considered various factors, including general submissions made during hearings, earlier points of principle, and a master document combining points of dispute, replies, and additional comments. This extensive document spanned 35 pages, supplemented by a 12,170-page bundle from the receiving party.

Judge Nagalingam's decisions allowed items deemed reasonably incurred, with allowances made for what was considered reasonable in amount. The outcomes were detailed in a table, inviting parties to apply resultant reductions and rate adjustments to produce an updated working copy of the bill.

This working copy aimed to highlight phases where the receiving party remained over budget. Upon receipt of the recalculated bill, the court would release a judgment concerning good reason. The recalculated bill was to be accompanied by a revised Precedent Q, clarifying any excesses in budgeted phases.

The judgment emphasised that the revised Precedent Q should reflect decisions made in this assessment only, warning against rephasing costs. Submissions related to good reason were based on the original phasing of the bill, necessitating consistency in the revised document.

The court indicated that the assessment could be completed on paper, with the possibility of a short remote hearing if necessary. However, any delays caused by parties in recalculating the bill could result in an in-person hearing to address such delays.