Sergio Mendes Costa v Dissociadid Limited & Anor.
Decision date: 16 January 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] EWHC 49 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This case concerns Mr Sergio Mendes Costa's application for a wasted costs order against his former counsel and solicitors after the IPEC awarded the defendants their costs for work done after 18 October 2022 (assessed at £10,000) arising from a late jurisdictional argument advanced by Mr Costa. The court held that Mr Costa himself had acted unreasonably in advancing the late jurisdictional point, justifying the costs order against him, but that his former counsel and solicitors had not acted improperly, unreasonably in the stricter sense, or negligently. Mr Costa's applications for a stay and for wasted costs against his lawyers were therefore dismissed and the costs order against Mr Costa remains in force.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Where a party advances a late jurisdictional objection without adequate supporting authority and that objection necessitates further submissions, the wasted-costs provisions in CPR 63.26(2) may justify an order compelling that party to pay subsequent costs; however, legal advisers who, having given clear warnings and acting on client authority, advance an arguable but insufficiently researched point will not necessarily be liable to a wasted costs order absent conduct that is improper, unreasonable in the stricter sense, or negligent.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: high
The judgment emphasised that the court’s wasted-costs jurisdiction is compensatory and to be used sparingly so it does not become a satellite of the litigation, and that there must be a causal link between the challenged conduct and the loss sought to be recovered. The judge also observed that solicitors may bear significant responsibility for ensuring jurisdictional arguments are properly researched before being advanced.