Garden House Software Limited v Timothy John Marsh & Ors

Garden House Software Limited v Timothy John Marsh & Ors

The court found that, given the complexity, value, and importance of the application, as well as the conduct of the parties, the Claimant's costs were generally reasonable but required a 20% reduction for proportionality, resulting in a costs award of £70,158.64.

Parties
Claimant: Garden House Software Limited; Defendant: Timothy John Marsh; Defendant: Timothy Nicholas Rowland; Defendant: Andrew Porter; Defendant: Mark Harrison; Defendant: Lucy Sun; Defendant: Pamela Ball; Defendant: Serisys Asset Holding Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Determination After Dismissal of Summary Judgment/strike Out Application
Outcome
Claimant awarded costs of the application, summarily assessed.
Legal Topics
Costs, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Proportionality of Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Costs Summary Judgment Strike Out Proportionality of 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Garden House Software Limited

Claimant

Timothy John Marsh

Defendant

Timothy Nicholas Rowland

Defendant

Andrew Porter

Defendant

Mark Harrison

Defendant

Lucy Sun

Defendant

Pamela Ball

Defendant

Serisys Asset Holding Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Determination After Dismissal of Summary Judgment/strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the reasonable and proportionate amount of costs to be awarded to the Claimant after dismissal of the Defendants' application for reverse summary judgment/strike-out?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, given the complexity, value, and importance of the application, as well as the conduct of the parties, the Claimant's costs were generally reasonable but required a 20% reduction for proportionality, resulting in a costs award of £70,158.64.

Court Disposition

Claimant awarded costs of the application, summarily assessed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Claimant's costs of the application, summarily assessed at £70,158.64.