Garden House Software Ltd v Timothy John Marsh & Ors [2026] EWHC 568 (Ch) (11 March 2026)

Garden House Software Ltd v Timothy John Marsh & Ors [2026] EWHC 568 (Ch) (11 March 2026)

The court held that, considering the complexity, value, and importance of the application, the use of London 1 rates, two senior solicitors, and both leading and junior counsel was reasonable. However, a 20% reduction was applied to the total claimed costs for proportionality, resulting in a final award of £70,158.64.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 568 (Ch)
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
11 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination Following Summary Judgment/strike Out Application / Post Application, Consequential Matters on Costs
Outcome
Claimant awarded costs, summarily assessed at £70,158.64, payable by the First, Second, Sixth, and Seventh Defendants (THD).
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Costs Assessment, Proportionality of Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Summary Judgment Strike Out Costs Assessment 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 4
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

Costs Determination Following Summary Judgment/strike Out Application / Post Application, Consequential Matters on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant's claimed costs for opposing the Defendants' summary judgment/strike-out application are reasonable and proportionate
  2. 2 Whether reductions should be made to the claimed costs based on hourly rates, team composition, counsel fees, and time spent on the statement of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, considering the complexity, value, and importance of the application, the use of London 1 rates, two senior solicitors, and both leading and junior counsel was reasonable. However, a 20% reduction was applied to the total claimed costs for proportionality, resulting in a final award of £70,158.64.

Court Disposition

Claimant awarded costs, summarily assessed at £70,158.64, payable by the First, Second, Sixth, and Seventh Defendants (THD).

Orders

  • THD to pay the Claimant's costs of the application, summarily assessed in the sum of £70,158.64.