Are you seriously saying that you sent them a load of correspondence that had nothing to do with anything and that you didn’t intend them to read??  Why?

22.17 - costs have always been assessed in this way - in order to be recoverable they must be reasonable,  necessary and proportionate. On the indemnity basis they must be reasonable. Costs incurred in dealing with matters which are irrelevant aren't recoverable and never have been. Agreed, man judges (ex lawyers) don't apply the rules correctly and award costs which aren't recoverable, but that the rules are nonetheless the rules, and the courts aren't going to allow a decision like this to stand against a LiP.

22.19 - I've no idea why the Defendant sent the correspondence, but are you saying that you judged the case without asking why? Didn't you realise that if the material was irrelevant it makes no difference whether the Defendant intended them to read ot or not, its still not a recoverable cost?

22.06 - you might work that way, but the courts don't. If you think the courts will allow a decision like this to stand against a LiP then you are the one being naive.

The courts might have got away with this if they'd fined the Defendant £5k or even £10k. But £100k with more to come. Come on!

Because, as he has shown on this thread, he seems to delight in firing off dozens of really bad points every day.  He's like the terminator.  You cannot reason with him, you cannot argue with him and he absolutely does not know when to stop.  Ever.  

Do you really think the judge in this case is posting comments in the way you suggest, 8.39?

In any case, nobody has been able to say why the points raised in relation to the decision being unfair are incorrect. Just a bunch of people who don't like LiPs saying the decision was correct and can't be appealed, with absolutely no reasons as to why.

How can the Defendant be liable for costs when the Claimant didn't incur any costs?

I love how a LIP thinks they know more than experienced lawyers and judges. 

Blame Google.

Make an application for permission to appeal and see how far you get then.  At some point you'll realise that you've already reached the end of the road.

"Mark: first, the route of appeal isn’t to the CoA. They’re not going to look at it, and appeal courts very rarely interfere with the wide discretion afforded to first instance judges in costs. 
 

Second, having your costs assessed in the standard basis won’t mean they are reduced to a few thousand.

Third, unsuccessful litigants who are represented regularly go down for significant sums on costs.  There’s nothing here to suggest you were “discriminated against”.  It’s just that the usual rules were applied.

Finally, your trial judge is hardly likely to be commenting on a RoF forum!"

Hello again HHJ Matthews!

1) Who do you think the route of appeal is to if not the CoA?

2) Costs orders of over £100k are very rarely awarded against LiPs

3) Are you saying costs assessed on the standard basis would be less than a few thousand? (if so you may be right). Remember, if the standard basis applies, proportionality kicks in and s117 CA 2006 claims usually cost a few hundred

4) Please provide a case where there has been am award of £100k or more against a represented party in relation to a s117 2006 CA claim?

5) I'd be surprised if there isn't a judge in the land who doesn't read RoF forums!

... Is this the best ROF thread ever? I think so.

"as he has shown on this thread, he seems to delight in firing off dozens of really bad points every day"

It's both fascinating and horrifying to watch, isn't it? 

Dozens of terrible points a day; no self-awareness of the flaws within them, no ability to acknowledge those flaws when they are pointed out, and a seemingly compulsive need to reply to every word said against them. Not particularly difficult to see how an endless tide of meritless correspondence was generated very quickly.

But I think what I'm most baffled by as I read this thread is his iron-clad certainty that a party isn't entitled to claim the costs of replying to bad correspondence from the party that originally thought it was a good idea to send it.

It's almost as if he thinks that the judge has a duty to save the Defendant from himself. So having spent months cranking out pointless, rude, meritless, time-wasting letters - entirely of his own volition - the Judge should now reach in and tell the other side that the Defendant gets a free pass for all that and that because they should have recognised how stupid he was being all along. Whereas the Defendant never has to come to terms with his own stupidity and effectively gets to outsource the costs of it to everyone else around him. 

All of which leads to a position whereby the writer of correspondence never has to consider whether it's stupid or not before sending it; but the recipient of that correspondence has to make a split-second decision about whether it's stupid or not before spending any time considering, discussing or replying. 

And all of that apparently makes perfect sense to him and he can't see the problem with it... 

Just a bunch of people who don't like LiPs saying the decision was correct and can't be appealed, with absolutely no reasons as to why.

In fairness, the 'people' commenting here have been remarkably quiet about why they think the Defendant has a right to appeal in the first place. Like, which bit of the CPR is he looking to rely on to do that? 

A litigant doesn't just get to say "best out of three" when they lose - they do need to be able to point to a specific appeal right that they want to rely on and can then demonstrate grounds for.

Does 'anyone' here have that reference?

Mark, the court found that the massive costs incurred were your fault, so of course they were awarded against you.  If you think there are helpful cases (there aren’t), you need to find them and use them in an appeal.  But as people have already said, it won’t get far.  If you think you’re right, ask for permission to appeal and tell us how you get on.  “£100k costs aren’t usually awarded against LiPs” isn’t a ground of appeal.  Even if it’s true (doubtful), it’ll only be because LiPs don’t usually go the extremes of time wasting the judge found you to have done.

It’s quite obvious now that the “supportive” comments are all coming from Mark Hardy himself and he doesn’t even deny it!

I can see from the number of comments on here how it is possible for a LIP to send more than an email a day in a month regarding a narrow matter. 

Costs remain the discretion of the court. 

It's a court of law, not a court of justice.

@12.06 - many experienced lawyers and judges think that the decision is wrong.

12.18 - a first instance hearing isn't the end of the road. We'll see what happens with this case - in my view the decision won't stand. The courts would lose all credibility if it did.

12.28 - its certainly one of the most informative!

13.12:

"Dozens of terrible points a day; no self-awareness of the flaws within them, no ability to acknowledge those flaws when they are pointed out, and a seemingly compulsive need to reply to every word said against them. Not particularly difficult to see how an endless tide of meritless correspondence was generated very quickly." - yes, but that's enough about those commenting in defence of the costs order.

It really does take a matter of seconds to determine whether correspondence is relevant or not. If the correspondence isn't relevant, any time spent dealing with it isnt recoverable. It really is as simple as that. Hiring lawyers doesn't open a tap to allow costs to be imposed on the other side in relation to all correspondence, whether or not its relevant to the case. That would be absurd.

13.15 - agreed, given the various reasons which have been given why the decision was unfair and won't stand, people have been remarkably quiet on grounds of appeal, mostly sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming 'there are no grounds for appeal' without reference to CPRs.

15.40 - you don't need the Defendant to tell you the results of an appeal, open justice means it will be publicly available, and when the decision is overturned probably widely reported.

You say that “£100k costs aren’t usually awarded against LiPs”, yet tellingly can't provide one other case where they were.

15.41 - is that right HHJ Matthews?

15.59 - you can also see how a lot if irrelevant correspondence can be generated.

The decision was neither lawful or just.

One thing that hasn't been touched on much is that the Claimant is a charity and the Defendant seems to have been told by the Claimant that he couldn't be a Defendant in a claim from a charity without permission from the Charities Commission. This was incorrect, but it caused the Defendant to have to spend a lot of time in correspondence with the Charities Commission and the Claimant. None of this time is of course recoverable against the Defendant.

Imagine having all day to throw away arguing with people theoretically over a case you just got spanked on. Must be slow Monday.

Just make your appeal and post the results, anything beyond that is hot air.

Obviously the coyrts wouldn't be minded to allow recovery of costs for correspondence which could have been resolved by a quick phone call.

If the correspondence isn't relevant, any time spent dealing with it isnt recoverable. It really is as simple as that. Hiring lawyers doesn't open a tap to allow costs to be imposed on the other side in relation to all correspondence, whether or not its relevant to the case.

So a Party is entitled to just fire out irrelevant, stupid, pointless correspondence without end, and never suffer any costs consequences for doing so - isn't that just outsourcing the cost of the writer's stupidity to everyone else around them?

Also, if the correspondence was irrelevant, then why would a rational author write it and send it in the first place? Are you saying that the court's should treat this Mark Hardy fellow as a simpleton who couldn't be expected to understand that what he was saying and doing was stupid and self-defeating? 

It’s kind of funny to argue against him here because we can just walk off when it gets tiresome.  I feel really sorry for the Claimants, their lawyers and the judge, who have had to put up with this repeatedly. 
 

Oh well.  Mark has until Thursday, I believe, to rustle up £100k on account, which will no doubt soothe some of the pains the Claimants have been put to.  I’m sure he’ll let us know how that’s going....

Costs judgments, especially permissions to appeal, are rarely reported and - despite what you may think - this isn’t a novel or interesting point of law.  It’s a straightforward exercise of discretion and there’s nothing to suggest the trial judge went wrong.  And how are we supposed to cite the CPR to show that you haven’t got grounds for appeal?  You have to show the court that you do - and none of the points you’ve raised in this thread would constitute a ground of appeal in my view.  The court found the costs were reasonably incurred because - as you’ve now demonstrated at length - you can’t accept when you’re wrong. 

gosh

so much misunderstanding here about how litigation works and adverse costs risks

most correspondence from LiPs is 5% relevant to the dispute 95% utterly irrelevant. all wrapped in long emails or letters many pages long

the relevant bits are often pigswill but relate to conduct eg for instance my fave LiP at present seems to have discovered the word “oppressive” and is using it to describe my client (claimant).

so utter rubbish to say it takes seconds to determine if something is relevant or not

Still not Mark Hardy or HHJ Matthews: the Defendant wasn't spanked, he was sussesful in most of the points he raised.

I'm just telling you what's likely to happen in this case - you seem to have an awful lot of time to read and respond.

An appeal won't need to be posted as it will be publicly available. You may not like the result of an appeal, but that won't change it.

12th@ 17.27 - there is simply no cost to the other party in relation to irrelevant correspondence. There is no obligation to read or reply to it. It is not recoverable. I really don't know how else to tell you that.

It doesn't matter why the Defendant sends the correspondence - if its not relevant its not recoverable. It seems the court did form an opinion of the Defendant because he was a LiP. This was unfair and should be reflected in any appeal.

12th 17.56 - the claimants, their lawyers and the judge can also ignore any irrelevant correspondence - they certainly can't charge for it.

The way these things work is that if an appeal is lodged the interim costs won't be payable. So don't get too excited. The Claimants haven't been out to any pains as they haven't suffered any loss.

If you apply for permission to appeal, the original order still stands until/unless the appeal court grants a stay of execution.

And your charity point is rubbish - they're your costs, not the claimant's; no-one has been ordered to pay your costs, so whether they are recoverable or not is by the by.

12th @ 18.35 - so in other words you can't find a single case where costs of over £100k have been awarded against a LiP. And you say none of the points raised are grounds for appeal, but don't say why. The judge and the courts have gone wrong in a variety of ways, perhaps most glaringly in holding a trial at all for a s117 CA application.

'Not admitting being wrong' is hardly grounds for an indemnity costs order of over £100k.

Much of the Defendant's correspondence is clearly to do with his complaints about the directors of the Claimant. This is obviously not recoverable as it bears no relevance to the s117 CA 2006 claim.

a litigator - if correspondence from a LiP is 5% relevant and 95% relevant you only get to recover costs for the 5% part which is relevant. That's how costs work. You don't get to recover cists for counting how many times the word 'oppressive' is used.

It is the job of a lawyer to sort through any 'pigswill' (and 'pigswill' isnt recoverable by the way) and deal with the part which is relevant. Anyone who can't do that at a glance is in the wrong job.

9.21 - "If you apply for permission to appeal, the original order still stands until/unless the appeal court grants a stay of execution".

...which they will in this case if there's an appeal.

Just because you don't understand the Charities point doesn't make it rubbish - it sounds as if you don't know a thing about this case despite pretending to address the Claimant. Clearly if it was the case that the Claimant advised the Defendant that they needed permission from the Charities Commission to defend the claim, and after corresponding with the Charities Commission thus turns out not to be the case then these aren't  the Defendant's costs. This is basic stuff. Any xosts ordered on the indemnity basis (which thus is until such time as it is overturned) must be reasonable. Clearly if a Claimant incurs costs telling the Defendant something which is wrong these costs aren't recoverable.

This entire thread is just such a sad state. I feel bad for Mark in a sense that he just can't let it go, I can't imagine being so blinkered in my belief that I am right despite everything and everyone pointing to the contrary.

I do like this argument though anon @ 10:33:

"It is the job of a lawyer to sort through any 'pigswill' (and 'pigswill' isnt recoverable by the way) and deal with the part which is relevant. Anyone who can't do that at a glance is in the wrong job."

Funny, I always thought my job as a litigator was to conduct matters in accordance with the overriding objective, not "sort through any pigswill" that any muppet might deign to send to me. Perhaps my job description is unique in the industry.

The idea that you only get to recover costs for dealing with 5% of correspondence sent to you is laughable. If I have to read a 10 page letter to get the 2 paragraph point, then I'm going to recover for all 10 pages of pigswill. I've yet to see a Court order otherwise.

@09:44, Veluppillaiv Veluppillai (2015) is one such case. A costs order was made against an LiP for £146,609.

Too often the courts indulge represented parties against litigants in person, overlooking breach after breach. Costs far in excess of what should reasonably allowed are awarded, as is the case here.

Let me break it down for you.

(1) Establish the duty;

(2) Produce evidence of breach of duty:

(3) Establish the breach of duty caused losses.

LIP's deviate from this with unfocused litigation. They take many irrelevant points. Often they attempt to switch the goalposts and refuse to confront the position they are in. This leads to the "doubling down" approach. 

CPR 44.2 allows discretion to the court about costs. CPR r 44.4 outlines the relevant factors. The judgment is not flawed. 

This is a £1k administrative case. It can't be dressed up as a £160k case and I very much doubt the decision will be allowed to stand.

"It is the job of a lawyer to sort through any 'pigswill' (and 'pigswill' isnt recoverable by the way) and deal with the part which is relevant. Anyone who can't do that at a glance is in the wrong job."

Absolutely right!

We get non-psychics applying to join Chambers all the time. Personally, I don't know why they waste their time. It's straight into the 'human' bin you go*.

The website was very clear: pre-cogs, omega level psychics, or actual wizards only. Muggles need not apply. So don't ask.

*Obviously we don't have to actually read their applications to find out. We just stroke the envelope, feel the energy signatures emanating through the plastic letterbox, then sling the wrong sort straight into the bin. That's what lawyering is.

Also, for those of us gripped by this stark portrait of a man sacrificing himself on the altar of his own ego, is there anything we can do to track the progress of his intended appeal as it heads through the courts (assuming that it actually ever gets that far)?

I am desperate for RoF to let me know how this one goes. So is there any way that I can find out if Mr Hardy does or doesn't manage to appeal, and if he does how can I make sure I don't miss the next judgement?

Costs are at the discretion of the court. Section 117(3) added nothing to the general rule on costs beyond conferring a further power to make a non-party costs order over and above the Senior Courts Act 1981. The company was clearly the successful party here, albeit they did not succeed on all of its arguments. 

The indemnity costs point seems consistent with case law. Again, a discretion point and the court had both visibility of correspondence and sat through the evidence and submissions.

The court had power to summarily assess costs under CPR PD 44 at para 9.2. The costs seemed high which is why 60% payment on account was ordered within 14 days. None of this seems out of kilter with the norm.

Aside from the costs seemingly being towards the high-end (say a reduction to 66% - 70% at assessment) the court does not appear to have erred.

13th @9:44: Yeah, I'm not going to do your legal research for you.

Judging by the comments a few people who see LiPs as £100k meal tickets are sweating.

"a litigator - if correspondence from a LiP is 5% relevant and 95% relevant you only get to recover costs for the 5% part which is relevant."

This is simply not true.  It is what you want to believe is true, but it is not true.  I've done literally hundreds of detailed assessments, both for paying parties and for receiving parties, and this idea you have is simply not the way it works.  It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it is still nowhere close to the correct position.

So much for freedom of information.

Still not Mark Hardy or HHJ Matthews:

There's nothing to 'let go' as the design won't stand. Its not 'everyone else' - most people will agree this is too high.

If only 2 paragraphs of a 10 page letter are relevant, you don't get to charge for poring over the whole 10 pages. No court would allow you to recover irrelevant costs. You may want to recover them, but you won't get them.

@ 15:18 - similar experience here.  

11.29 - do you know what this case was about? It was a s117 2006 CA application. There was no question of 'duty. The Claimant suffered no losses. Irrelevant points are not recoverable.

12.33 - I think your idea of lawyering is different to most people's. I hope you don't charge £100k for flinging letters in a bin.

12.36 - I don't think it was the judge's ego which drove the judgement, more a feeling that LiPs shouldn't be in the courts.

Any appeal will be a matter of public record, but I agree, it would be good if rof kept us updated on this story.

13th@ 13.42 - you're being asked to do your own research - you're the one trying to argue this isn't unusual. Yet you can't name a single case where costs of over £100k have been awarded against a LiP. 

13th @ 13:37 there is if course a limit to the court's discretion as to costs. In this case, tge Defendant succeeded in most of his arguments.

Which case law are you referring to? This doesn't appear to be anywhere close to the threshold to impose indemnity cists on  a LiP - no extra work was necessary and the Claimant suffered no loss. Again, there is a limit to discretion and this sailed past it. Don't forget- s117 applications under the 2006 CA don't attract a trial - there should have been no evidence or submissions. This was a massive blunder by the court, and nit one the Defendant should pay for.

The court didn't summarily assess - the matter has been sent for detailed assessment. £160k for a s117 CA 2006 application (normal cost up to £1k) is clearly out of the norm - the payment on account is far too high.

Agree that even an an indemnity basis cists should reduce by 60-70% (at the very leaat(, but the court has erred in many ways, indeed has done scarcely anything right. That's why the decision is unlikely to stand.

13th @ 3.18 and 14th @ 9.50 - I doubt either of you (assuming you're not the same person) are getting away with taking £100k off of LiPs on a regular basis.

I doubt you really do recover costs for time spent on matters irrelevant to the case, even from represented parties, but if you do its best to keep quiet about it, because its against the rules.

You might not want this decision to be overturned, but that doesn't mean it won't be.

There appears to have been almost zero case management on this case.

A couple more decisions like this and fixed cists will be brought in.

Indemnity cists sound very painful Mark.

Which part of your body did you get them on?

Or would you rather not say?

"This doesn't appear to be anywhere close to the threshold to impose indemnity cists on  a LiP - no extra work was necessary and the Claimant suffered no loss."

Completely wrong, yet again.  Indemnity costs are the inevitable consequence of litigating in the way that the defendant (you?) litigated in this case.  It makes no odds whether the litigant is represented or in person.  Any losing litigant going about their business in the way described in these two judgments is certain to be ordered to pay costs on the indemnity basis.  That's what has been ordered.

The claimants suffered the loss of massive amounts of money that they were required to pay to their legal team for having to deal with the relentless barrage of nonsense that the defendant put in train.  The defendant is ordered to pay those costs.  That is where things stand.  That is what will happen, unless the decision is successfully appealed.

You seem to know a lot about this case.  Do you happen to know whether or not the defendant has applied for permission to appeal? 

"There appears to have been almost zero case management on this case."

According to the judgment, it was case managed.  However, in breach of directions, the defendant ignored specific case management directions geared towards the aim of preventing him from burying the claimants and the court under mountains of superfluous material.

14th@ 12.06: I'm not saying it's not unusual; just that it seems to have been justified in this case.  LiPs are subject to costs order same as anyone else; you pushed the costs up by snowjobbing correspondence; indemnity costs were ordered (which usually result in a reduction of 10-20% max) with justification.  The decision will plainly stand.  And anyway, someone has found a case where a LiP was ordered to pay over £100k in costs.

Mark, you're just saying the same thing over and over again despite demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules and ignoring any arguments to the contrary. It's no wonder you got landed with a massive costs bill. 

14th@ 14:10 - according to the judgment, you ignored most of the court's orders, so I don't see how you can blame them for it.  

For those interested, you can track the appeal here: https://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/search.jsp. He hasn't made it yet. Get your bets in now!

This thread is triggering my PTSD from dealing with an LiP of the ‘Magna Carta’ kind.  Coincidentally they also received a very significant costs order against them, and are now subject to a civil restraint order and further costs orders following many more totally without merit applications seeking to overturn the first instance judgment.  Some people just don’t know when to stop.

What guarantees can the court give that people requesting access to the register of members under s116 2006 CA won't be hit with a six figure bill?

Mark at this point I think you might just be arguing with yourself.

16:17 - the fact that all you can find to disagree with is a typo shows that the Defendant must have been treated unfairly.

16:56 - the fact that the Defendant was a LiP does matter. LiPs approach the courts differently than represented parties are entitled to do so.

A 'relentless barrage of nonsense' didn't need to be dealt with by the legal team. A 'relentless barrage of nonsense' isn't relevant to the case so is not recoverable. If you actually read the judgement you will see that the Claimants incurred no loss as the costs were covered by non-refundable donations.

The order for costs is unlikely to stand as it would lead to a loss of confidence in the justice system. Even if not appealed, enforcement is highly unlikely. The Defendant is therefore not likely to be paying these costs. That is the reality of how things stand.

I don't know more than anyone else who has done their homework and know how these things play out. It will be a matter of public record if the Defendant appeals.

17:58 - yes, but that's just the judge saying he case managed his own case. Looking at it objectively there was practically zero case management to stop costs running up - the Claimant's solicitors should have been told which correspondence was non-recoverable against as the case progressed. This is fundamental in order to stop costs being run up against a LiP. In any case, costs by definition can't be recovered against 'mountains of superfluous material'.

This is what happens when obsessive behaviour becomes compulsive behaviour.

18.20 - so it is unusual. In fact, you are unable to find one other case where a costs order of anywhere near this size has been made against a LiP for such a simple case.

LiPs aren't subject to more punitive cists orders than represented parties. You judged the costs based on 'snowballing correspondence', which was easily identifiable as irrelevant and therefore not recoverable. Indemnity costs were clearly unjustified.

This decision can't and won't stand, sorry, but that's just the reality.

@18.22 - there haven't been any arguments to the contrary, merely a succession people (the same person?) shouting that there are no grounds for appeal and saying that anyone disagreeing with them must be the Defendant themselves. Nobody has been able to explain why the Defendant should pay for the court's mistakes and poor case management.

The Defendant hasn't been landed with a huge costs bill as the decision is unlikely to stand.

18.27 - if you'd case managed properly you'd have made better orders.

@11.53 - there is a case where a LiP was ordered to pay £146k in costs. It happens. And it's not a "more punitive costs order than represented parties". Costs of that magnitude are regularly made against represented parties. 

When you sent the correspondence and the 500 page transcript, did you say "here's some material which adds nothing to my case so you needn't read it"; or did you put it forward as being relevant?  If the latter, it's unarguable that the Cs had to read it and work out what your case might be no it, so those costs are recoverable.

An experienced deputy high court judge found against you. What makes you think that you have so much better an understanding of the rules and practice? The order being overturned is a fantasy.

Paddy Power - good shout, although there may be no appeal if the Claimant agreed not to enforce.

8.03 - how much was the initial costs order against your 'Magna Carta' LiP, and the subsequent ones? Doubt they were anywhere near £160k.

9.24 - well you're still on arguing judge.

11.45 - it is indeed. Most of the people arguing that the decision won't be overturned don't believe it themselves anymore.

Most of the people arguing don’t have any interest in the case, so why would they care if it’s overturned or not. You’re quite clearly the defendant, otherwise why would you be arguing an indefensible position so vociferously for so long? You’re in denial that you have a sword of Damocles over you thanks to your own inability to know when to stop. 

@15.08 Why would the claimant agree not to enforce? Sounds like you’ve decided you’re not going to appeal...

15.01 - show us a case where a LiP was ordered to pay £146k or anything like it in relation to something as simple as a s117 2006 CA claim. You can't cos there isn't one. If the Defendant was represented and had behaved in the exact same way no such costs order would have been made. This was about punishing the Defendant fir being a LiP.

You as a lawyer or judge don't need it spelled out to you if something is relevant or not - you're job is to tell at a glance whether it is or not. Dealing with irrelevant material is not recoverable.

The judge and the court made many mistakes. They allocated a trial to a s117 2006 CA application. It is hardly fair to expect the Defendant to oay for this blunder. The judge awarded costs on the indemnity basis because he said the Defendant was 'condescending' - this is no basis to make such an order. Extensive costs have been ordered in relation to correspondence from the Defendant which was irrelevant to thd case - these are not properly recoverable.

You may hope the one day you come up against a LiP in such a case and are awarded a 6 figure sum. But its not gonna happen. This isn't a case where the order might be overturned if looked at properly- it is a case where it would have to be.

This case is like charging someone over £100k for fighting a parking ticket.

The correct decision here would have been no order as to costs.

Garage 1984:

Veluppillaiv Veluppillai (2015) was indeed a case where a costs order was made against a LiP for £146,609. However, since that case involved 30 hearings (as opposed to one hearing in this case which shouldn't have taken place according to the rules) and dealt with contempt of court and threats to the other party and their counsel, it is perhaps not the best example. Notably that case with its 30 hearings still produced a costs award which is less than the amount sought in this case with its one hearing. Applying the same logic, this case would incur recovery of around £2k in costs, much closer to the £1k true value of recoverable costs for a case if this type.