Cook v Skeggs [2026] EWHC 1132 (KB) (12 May 2026)

Cook v Skeggs [2026] EWHC 1132 (KB) (12 May 2026)

The judge's costs order was wrong because it did not reflect the Appellant's overall success in resisting both the strike out and summary judgment applications. The summary judgment application failed entirely, and the strike out was cured by amendment. The appropriate order was for the Respondent to pay the Appellant's costs of the application, subject to a 25% reduction for her late amendment.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 1132 (KB)
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Leonard Cook; Appellant/defendant: Charlotte Skeggs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Pleading Amendments, Possession Claims, Fraud Allegations
Civil Procedure Property Law Costs Orders Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Pleading Amendments Possession Claims Fraud Allegations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonard Cook

Respondent/claimant

Charlotte Skeggs

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first instance judge erred in awarding the Respondent 80% of his costs of a failed strike out/summary judgment application
  2. 2 Whether the costs order properly reflected the parties' relative success and failure on the application
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant's late amendment justified depriving her of costs or requiring her to pay the Respondent's costs

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's costs order was wrong because it did not reflect the Appellant's overall success in resisting both the strike out and summary judgment applications. The summary judgment application failed entirely, and the strike out was cured by amendment. The appropriate order was for the Respondent to pay the Appellant's costs of the application, subject to a 25% reduction for her late amendment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Respondent to pay Appellant's costs of the contested strike out and summary judgment application, subject to a 25% reduction.
  • Respondent to pay Appellant's costs of the appeal, to be summarily assessed.