Leonard Cook v Charlotte Skeggs

Leonard Cook v Charlotte Skeggs

The judge’s order awarding the Respondent 80% of his costs was wrong because it did not reflect the Appellant’s success on both the strike out and summary judgment applications. The summary judgment application failed entirely, and the strike out was cured by amendment. There was no proper basis to deprive the Appellant of her costs except to reflect her late amendment. The correct order is that the Respondent should pay the Appellant’s costs of the applications, subject to a 25% reduction for her conduct regarding late amendment.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Leonard Cook; Appellant/defendant: Charlotte Skeggs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (costs) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Amendment of Pleadings, Appeals on Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Costs Orders Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Amendment of Pleadings Appeals on Costs

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

Civil Appeal (costs) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in awarding the Respondent 80% of his costs of the strike out/summary judgment application when the Appellant was the successful party on both applications
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to distinguish between the costs attributable to the strike out and summary judgment elements
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent’s conduct regarding costs disclosure justified a sanction under CPR 44.11

Ratio Decidendi

The judge’s order awarding the Respondent 80% of his costs was wrong because it did not reflect the Appellant’s success on both the strike out and summary judgment applications. The summary judgment application failed entirely, and the strike out was cured by amendment. There was no proper basis to deprive the Appellant of her costs except to reflect her late amendment. The correct order is that the Respondent should pay the Appellant’s costs of the applications, subject to a 25% reduction for her conduct regarding late amendment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Respondent to pay Appellant’s costs of the strike out and summary judgment applications, subject to a 25% reduction for late amendment
  • Respondent to pay Appellant’s costs of the appeal, to be summarily assessed after written submissions