3+9=Costs (June 2026 Edition)

Welcome to the 13th Edition of 3 + 9 = Costs.

Having reported last about four of our members having been heavily involved in the Emissions litigation on behalf of three separate car manufacturers, we can report yet another Costs Management Hearing (3rd) in that case, demonstrating yet again the reach of Costs Budgeting even in the most complex litigation. The new edition of the White Book Costs & Funding supplement has hit the shelves, and five of our members remain involved in that work. News on the recent Gambling Commission case (May 2026) before Mrs. Justice Joanna Smith DBE has circulated, providing an excellent example of an indemnity costs order being made with a 75% payment on account in favour of the client I had the pleasure of advising behind the scenes.

Still, we hear nothing about legislation addressing PACCAR. But in positive news, the “Litigation Funding Working Group”, which first reported in October 2024 [Chaired by Mr. Justice Adam Johnson and which includes Senior Costs Judge Rowley] is gathering evidence through consultation which closes on 16 July 2026. The Master of the Rolls having observed that the distinction between contentious and non-contentious costs was outdated, the Working Group is looking to develop a better scheme and reform to the Solicitors Act 1974.

At the time of writing, we are coming out of an exceptionally busy London International Disputes Week 2026. There was much useful “BD” done, and plenty to discuss about costs and funding. We are proud to have completed this year’s London Legal Walk 2026, If you are able to make a donation, however large or small, our donation page can be found here. You will know that all contributions go to frontline free legal advice charities, which, I am sure you will agree, is a most valuable cause.

With all that said, this edition showcases contributions from our formidable juniors:

• Daniel Kozelko examines the Court of Appeal reversal in Attersley (March 2026), which reinstated the application of fixed costs even where a Part 36 offer was accepted late, and notwithstanding allocation to the multi-track in between.
• Whilst exhaling with (uncertain) satisfaction that all is now at least clear on fixed costs, Christopher Moss causes another sharp intake! He reports on a High Court decision in Latunji (February 2026), where the Court departed from the fixed costs regime specifically arising out of the conduct of a defendant to third-party debt orders. Unusual, exceptional or out of the norm? A good examination of the different thresholds…
• When is a winner a winner, and a loser a loser? The general rule that the loser pays comes under Sam Burrett’s microscope, in the High Court decision in Cook (May 2026). There, Mr. Justice Sweeting emphasised the need for “significant reason” before departing from the general rule.
• Finally, the Court of Appeal in Duffy (February 2026) has given Daniel Laking pause for valuable thought. Failing to correctly certify a bill of costs was not fatal, said the Court of Appeal. Well, what’s in a signature? Quite a bit, apparently.

Plenty to keep you busy over the summer months…with hopefully a break to come! Keep an eye out for 39 events, and as we are fuelling the speakers for the Costs Law Reports Seminar in September 2026, we’ll see you then if not before!

Download the newsletter below.