High Court rules on costs in complex multi-claimant case

High Court rules on costs in complex multi-claimant case

The High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Soole, has delivered a significant judgment in the case of BB & Others vs Moutaz Al Khayyat & Others. The case involved multiple claimants and defendants, with the primary legal issues revolving around costs orders following the discontinuation of claims and jurisdictional challenges.

The judgment, handed down on 28 February 2025, followed a previous ruling on 19 February 2025, where the court dismissed the Discontinuing Claimants' application to disapply the presumptive costs rule under CPR 38.6. The court had refused permission to appeal that decision, setting the stage for subsequent hearings on costs orders.

Central to the case was the question of whether the Discontinuing Claimants should be liable for the costs incurred by Doha Bank Limited, one of the defendants, up to the point of their discontinuance. The court ruled that the Discontinuing Claimants were indeed liable for these costs, which were to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed upon.

Doha Bank sought interim payments on account of costs, claiming a total of £606,152 for the Discontinuance Costs Application alone. The court ordered an interim payment of £300,000, despite opposition from the Discontinuing Claimants, who argued for Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) protection.

The court also addressed the costs related to the Jurisdiction Application, where Doha Bank sought a distinct order and an interim payment of £500,000. The Discontinuing Claimants opposed this, citing a lapsed contractual undertaking. However, the court found no basis to defer the costs issues and ordered the interim payment.

The judgment further clarified the applicability of QOCS protection, determining that it did not extend to claims that did not include personal injury damages. This decision was grounded in established Court of Appeal precedents, which focus exclusively on the claims of individual claimants rather than the proceedings as a whole.

Additionally, the court dealt with the costs orders against the Continuing Claimants, whose claims were struck out for abuse of process. The court ruled that these claimants were not entitled to QOCS protection, as their claims were struck out on specific grounds outlined in CPR 44.15(b).

The case highlights the complexities of managing multi-claimant litigation, particularly in relation to costs and the strategic use of procedural rules like QOCS. Legal practitioners involved in similar cases will find the court's reasoning and application of the rules instructive.

Learn More

Explore essential areas of UK employment law, including contracts, workplace policies, and discrimination.