Ferko v Ealing Magistrates Court & Ors [2024] EWHC 3297 (Admin) (18 December 2024)

Ferko v Ealing Magistrates Court & Ors [2024] EWHC 3297 (Admin) (18 December 2024)

The court found that while the use of a Grade A fee earner was justified in principle, excessive reliance on this grade for routine tasks inflated costs. The overall fees, particularly for counsel, were disproportionate. The court applied percentage reductions to the claimed costs to ensure reasonableness and proportionality, ordering payment in accordance with the reduced figures.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3297 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Ferko; 1st Respondent: Ealing Magistrates Court; 2nd Respondent / 1st Defendant: Kapiesa Ltd T/A Xara Estates; 3rd Respondent / 2nd Defendant: Surinder Kumar; 4th Respondent / 3rd Defendant: Krishna Kumar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (administrative Court, Costs Application) / Post Judgment, Summary Assessment of Costs
Outcome
Costs summarily assessed and reduced; orders for payment made against all respondents.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Statutory Nuisance, Summary Assessment, Proportionality of Costs, Landlord Liability
Civil Procedure Environmental Law Landlord and Tenant Costs Assessment Statutory Nuisance Summary Assessment Proportionality of Costs Landlord Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ferko

Appellant

Ealing Magistrates Court

1st Respondent

Kapiesa Ltd T/A Xara Estates

2nd Respondent / 1st Defendant

Surinder Kumar

3rd Respondent / 2nd Defendant

Krishna Kumar

4th Respondent / 3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (administrative Court, Costs Application) / Post Judgment, Summary Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs claimed by the appellant are reasonable and proportionate
  2. 2 Whether costs should be summarily assessed or subject to detailed assessment
  3. 3 Appropriate apportionment and reduction of costs between respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the use of a Grade A fee earner was justified in principle, excessive reliance on this grade for routine tasks inflated costs. The overall fees, particularly for counsel, were disproportionate. The court applied percentage reductions to the claimed costs to ensure reasonableness and proportionality, ordering payment in accordance with the reduced figures.

Court Disposition

Costs summarily assessed and reduced; orders for payment made against all respondents.

Orders

  • Second, Third, and Fourth Respondents to pay 75% of the reduced costs (£10,141.2) for the application to amend the case stated.
  • Second, Third, and Fourth Respondents to pay the reduced costs (£24,893.22) for the substantive appeal.