VARIOUS SAM BORROWERS v BOS (SHARED APPRECIATION MORTGAGES) NO. 1 PLC & Ors.

VARIOUS SAM BORROWERS v BOS (SHARED APPRECIATION MORTGAGES) NO. 1 PLC & Ors.

The court approved the Defendants’ costs budget at reduced levels for each disputed phase, finding the original figures unreasonable and disproportionate, especially regarding counsel fees and expert costs. The court rejected inclusion of a contingency for specific disclosure in the Claimants’ budget, as its...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Various SAM Borrowers; Defendant: BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages) No. 1 PLC; Defendant: BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages) No. 2 PLC; Defendant: BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages) No. 3 PLC; Defendant: BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages) No. 4 PLC; Defendant: BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages) No. 5 PLC; Defendant: BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages) No. 6 PLC; Defendant: BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages (Scotland)) Limited; Defendant: BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages (Scotland) No.2) Limited; Defendant: BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages (Scotland) No.3) Limited; Defendant: Bank of Scotland PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Management Conference (second)
Outcome
Costs budgets approved with reductions; contingency for specific disclosure not approved.
Legal Topics
Costs Budgeting, Proportionality, Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act, Expert Evidence, Case Management
Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Banking Law Costs Budgeting Proportionality Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act Expert Evidence Case Management

Source-derived case record

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 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Various SAM Borrowers

Claimant

BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages) No. 1 PLC

Defendant

BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages) No. 2 PLC

Defendant

BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages) No. 3 PLC

Defendant

BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages) No. 4 PLC

Defendant

BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages) No. 5 PLC

Defendant

BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages) No. 6 PLC

Defendant

BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages (Scotland)) Limited

Defendant

BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages (Scotland) No.2) Limited

Defendant

BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages (Scotland) No.3) Limited

Defendant

Bank of Scotland PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Management Conference (second)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants’ costs budget is reasonable and proportionate
  2. 2 Appropriate level of costs for each litigation phase
  3. 3 Impact of counsel fees on proportionality

Ratio Decidendi

The court approved the Defendants’ costs budget at reduced levels for each disputed phase, finding the original figures unreasonable and disproportionate, especially regarding counsel fees and expert costs. The court rejected inclusion of a contingency for specific disclosure in the Claimants’ budget, as its necessity and scope remained uncertain. The overall approved budget for the Defendants, though higher than the Claimants’, was found to be within a reasonable and proportionate range given the complexity and potential value of the claims.

Court Disposition

Costs budgets approved with reductions; contingency for specific disclosure not approved.

Orders

  • Parties to revise budgets in accordance with judgment.
  • Agreed order to be provided reflecting approved figures for each phase.