High Court dismisses Assensus Limited's claims against Wirsol Energy

High Court dismisses Assensus Limited's claims against Wirsol Energy

The High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Constable, delivered a judgment on 7 March 2025, dismissing all claims brought by Assensus Limited against Wirsol Energy Limited. The case revolved around Assensus's alleged entitlement to a bonus of approximately £2.5 million, which Wirsol disputed, arguing there was no contractual basis for such a bonus.

The judgment followed a detailed examination of the contractual arrangements between the parties. The court found that Assensus had no express or implied contractual entitlement to the claimed bonus. Assensus's claims were based on a purported bonus entitlement related to the Cleve Hill project, which they argued was akin to a greenfield development.

In addressing the issue of costs, the court adhered to the general principle that costs follow the event, ordering Assensus to pay Wirsol's costs. Assensus argued for a reduction in costs due to Wirsol's refusal to engage in mediation. However, the court found that Wirsol's conduct was not unreasonable, particularly given the substantial gap between the parties' positions and the offers made during negotiations.

Mr Justice Constable referenced key cases, including Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust and Gore v Naheed, to support the decision that a refusal to mediate does not automatically warrant a cost penalty. The court concluded that mediation was unlikely to have succeeded given the significant differences in the parties' expectations.

The court also addressed the issue of interest on costs, granting Wirsol interest at 2% above the Bank of England base rate from the date of payment until one month after the delivery of a detailed bill of costs. The court declined to apply the Judgments Act 1838 rate of 8% immediately, allowing a reasonable period for Assensus to review the detailed bill.

Regarding interim costs, the court ordered Assensus to make an interim payment of £407,913.39. The calculation was based on a realistic assessment of budgeted and non-budgeted costs, with appropriate deductions for incurred costs.

Assensus sought permission to appeal on several grounds, including claims of entitlement to a bonus on a quantum meruit basis and unjust enrichment. The court found no reasonable prospects of success in the appeal, noting that the claims were inconsistent with the contractual arrangements and lacked a legal basis.

The court also denied Assensus's application for a stay of execution pending appeal, citing insufficient evidence to suggest that the interim payment would stifle the appeal. The judgment underscores the importance of clear contractual terms and the challenges of pursuing claims based on implied terms or unjust enrichment.