GS Woodland Court GP 1 Limited & Anor v RGCM Limited & Ors

GS Woodland Court GP 1 Limited & Anor v RGCM Limited & Ors

The Claimants' costs budget was found to be excessive, unrealistic, and disproportionate. The Claimants' conduct in advancing such a budget justified a departure from the usual order that costs are in the case. Defendants D2, D3, D4, and D5 are entitled to recover their reasonable costs of attendance at the hearing from the Claimants, who are deprived of their own costs for the hearing.

Parties
Claimant: GS Woodland Court GP 1 Limited; Claimant: GS Woodland Court GP 2 Limited; Defendant: RGCM Limited; Defendant: Hadfield Cawkwell Davidson Limited; Defendant: Met-Clad Contracts Limited; Defendant: Unite Modular Solutions Limited; Defendant: Unite Integrated Solutions PLC; Defendant: Eurolec Services Limited; Defendant: Quadro Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Construction Defects / Costs Management Hearing
Outcome
Application for costs by Defendants D2, D3, D4, and D5 granted. Claimants deprived of their costs for the hearing.
Legal Topics
Costs Management, Proportionality of Costs, Costs Orders, Construction Defects
Civil Procedure Construction Law Costs Management Proportionality of Costs Costs Orders Construction Defects

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 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GS Woodland Court GP 1 Limited

Claimant

GS Woodland Court GP 2 Limited

Claimant

RGCM Limited

Defendant

Hadfield Cawkwell Davidson Limited

Defendant

Met-Clad Contracts Limited

Defendant

Unite Modular Solutions Limited

Defendant

Unite Integrated Solutions PLC

Defendant

Eurolec Services Limited

Defendant

Quadro Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Construction Defects / Costs Management Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants' costs budget was reasonable and proportionate
  2. 2 Whether Defendants are entitled to their costs of the costs management hearing
  3. 3 Appropriate order as to costs following a costs management hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants' costs budget was found to be excessive, unrealistic, and disproportionate. The Claimants' conduct in advancing such a budget justified a departure from the usual order that costs are in the case. Defendants D2, D3, D4, and D5 are entitled to recover their reasonable costs of attendance at the hearing from the Claimants, who are deprived of their own costs for the hearing.

Court Disposition

Application for costs by Defendants D2, D3, D4, and D5 granted. Claimants deprived of their costs for the hearing.

Orders

  • Defendants D2, D3, D4, and D5 to recover their reasonable costs of attendance of counsel and one solicitor at the hearing from the Claimants.
  • Claimants to bear their own costs of the costs management hearing in any event.