O'Sullivan v Trading 212: County court delivers stark warning on proportionality as claimant ordered to pay £96,350 in costs

A costs judgement handed down today in the County Court at Central London has laid bare the consequences of disproportionate litigation, with Recorder Benjamin Wood ordering claimant Peter O'Sullivan to pay a net sum of £96,350 to Trading 212 UK Limited following the dismissal of his underlying share trading claim.

The substantive claim, resolved by extemporary judgement on 12 February 2026, concerned Trading 212's closure of O'Sullivan's account in August 2021. The recorder found that the defendant had both the contractual right and a regulatory obligation under anti-money laundering legislation to close the account, and dismissed the claim accordingly. There was no suggestion of any wrongdoing on the claimant's part.

What has followed is a costs exercise of extraordinary scale. By the time the parties appeared before the recorder at the costs hearing on 21 May 2026, the combined legal expenditure had exceeded £500,000, with the claimant having spent £246,426 and the defendant £452,456. The pleaded value of the claim was £37,106; the recorder's own assessment placed the true value of the dispute at around £5,000.

"The parties have spent over half a million pounds between them trying to get the court to decide whether the defendant owes the claimant in the region of £5,000," the recorder observed. "Or, for those who prefer multiples, the parties have spent around 100 times more on legal fees than the claim is actually worth."

Disclosure failures and their consequences

The recorder made two exceptions to an otherwise straightforward costs order in favour of the successful defendant. Trading 212 had failed to search for internal Slack messages during the disclosure exercise, in spite of these being directly relevant to the decision to close O'Sullivan's account. The late production of these documents during trial generated significant additional work for both parties and necessitated a reconvened hearing.

Whilst the recorder declined to award indemnity costs, rejecting the claimant's analogy with the conduct criticised in Finsbury Food Group plc v Axis Corporate Capital UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 1559 (Comm), he ordered Trading 212 to bear its own disclosure costs and to pay O'Sullivan's consequential costs on the standard basis, summarily assessed at £27,000 plus VAT.

Strike out application scrutinised

The defendant's costs of its strike out application, heard in September 2025 and adjourned upon undertakings from the claimant, were assessed at £15,000 against a claimed figure of £59,513. The recorder considered the application both necessary in principle and grossly disproportionate in execution, noting it was "unsuccessful, inasmuch as it was framed as a strike out application, and it was grossly disproportionate to spend more than twice the amount stated on the Claim Form to try to achieve that end."

Departure from approved budgets

In a significant element of the costs judgement, the recorder found good reason to depart from the defendant's approved costs budget under CPR 3.18. Trading 212's solicitors had charged at rates exceeding even the London 1 guideline hourly rates applicable to very heavy commercial work, in a case that originated in Hull and turned on a modest factual matrix. The recorder considered reductions of between a quarter and a half appropriate for solicitors' time across seniority grades.

Applying a broad-brush summary assessment across the remaining costs, the recorder assessed the defendant's recoverable costs of the claim at £113,750, producing a gross figure of £128,750 after inclusion of the strike out application costs.

After setting off the £32,400 payable by the defendant in relation to its disclosure failures, the net sum payable by O'Sullivan stands at £96,350, due by 8 July 2026.

The claimant, who appeared in person at the costs hearing following written submissions settled by Anthony Metzer KC and George Symes of counsel, has a pending application for permission to appeal the substantive judgement. The recorder declined to grant a stay but allowed 35 days for payment, with permission for either party to seek leave to appeal this costs decision by 5pm on Friday 6 June 2026.

The recorder's closing observation was unsparing: "This claim has exacted a high price, financially and emotionally, on those involved. It should never have reached this point."

O'Sullivan v Trading 212 UK Limited [2026] EWCC 32