TCC Case Law 2026
Costs & Ancillary
20 judgments of the Technology and Construction Court in this category. Each case page carries the summary, the legal article and the knowledge check.
- 01David Alan Kyte v McLaren Automotive Limited & Anor[2026] EWHC 1126 (TCC)The owner of a McLaren sports car that caught fire sued the manufacturer and dealer years later, but pleaded his case inadequately. Mr Justice Eyre struck the claim out as not properly particularised.
- 02Into Nominee One Limited & Anor v Study Group UK Limited & Anor[2026] EWHC 1201 (TCC)Landlords sought summary judgment on a substantial claim that turned on questions of construction. Roger ter Haar KC held the points of law were suitable for summary determination and decided them, leaving an amendment to increase the sum claimed for the consequential stage.
- 03Lloyds Developments Limited v Accor Hotel Services UK Limited[2026] EWHC 1238 (TCC)On a summary assessment of costs, the paying party objected that a junior fee earner's rate was above the guideline figure. Mrs Justice Jefford made a modest reduction for the junior's time but declined to cut the senior time spent supervising it.
- 04Coal Pension Properties Limited v Mace Living Limited & Ors[2026] EWHC 1248 (TCC)The court had to decide whether a claim form had been validly served. Roger ter Haar KC held the service was not valid, dismissed the claimant's application and granted the defendants the declarations they sought.
- 05The New Lottery Company Limited & Anor v The Gambling Commission[2026] EWHC 1311 (TCC)After the challenge to the Fourth National Lottery Licence award was dismissed, the court turned to costs. Mrs Justice Joanna Smith found the claimants' conduct highly unreasonable throughout and awarded indemnity costs for the whole proceedings.
- 06Gunaratnam Kirupakaran v Mahomed Tehseen Ibrahim & Ors[2026] EWHC 1429 (TCC)A claimant given a clear warning that his pleaded case was hopeless, and six months to fix it, still failed to set out a recognisable claim. Mrs Justice O'Farrell struck the claim out against every defendant and ordered him to pay their costs.
- 07Lloyds Developments Limited v Accor Hotel Services UK Limited[2026] EWHC 1522 (TCC)An insolvent claimant sought to have its former directors hand their mobile devices to an independent reviewer for disclosure. Mr Justice Constable dealt with the costs of that exercise, holding the defendant entitled to its costs against the claimant, with the directors ultimately answerable.
- 08BLL v STI[2026] EWHC 1678 (TCC)A gift-card business sought an urgent mandatory injunction against its Canadian software provider in support of arbitration. Mr Justice Constable held the case failed on urgency, on the high merits threshold for mandatory relief and on the adequacy of damages, and refused the injunction.
- 09Julian Thirsk & Anor v Berkeley Homes (North East London) Limited & Anor[2026] EWHC 215 (TCC)With the parties unable to agree costs budgets, the court set the figures itself. Mr Roger ter Haar KC pared back the amounts claimed for solicitors and counsel to what he considered proportionate and reasonable for each phase.
- 10CR Construction (UK) Limited v Barclays Bank PLC (Costs and Stay)[2026] EWHC 228 (TCC)After refusing to injunct payment under a performance bond, the court dealt with costs and a request to stay its order pending appeal. HHJ Stephen Davies refused the stay, holding it would achieve nothing given the nature of the order.
- 11Lloyds Developments Limited v Accor S.A[2026] EWHC 232 (TCC)A claimant that had obtained an extension of time to serve a claim form on a French defendant lost it because it had approached the court on a false basis. Mr Justice Eyre set the extension aside, so the claim was served out of time and the court had no jurisdiction.
- 12Thomas Barnes & Sons Plc (In Administration) v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council[2026] EWHC 24 (TCC)A successful defendant sought its costs not from the insolvent claimant but from those who stood behind the litigation. HHJ Stephen Davies held it just to make a non-party costs order against the respondents for the outstanding balance of costs.
- 13Baltimore Wharf SLP v Ballymore Properties Limited & Anor[2026] EWHC 312 (TCC)A defendant argued the whole dispute had already been compromised and sought to end it summarily. Mr Recorder Singer KC held there was no binding settlement and dismissed the applications for summary judgment and strike out.
- 14GS Woodland Court GP 1 Limited & Anor v RGCM Limited & Ors[2026] EWHC 351 (TCC)A claimant whose remedial scheme had been rejected by the Building Safety Regulator applied to adjourn the whole trial by a year. Mr Justice Constable refused, keeping the June 2026 date for liability and holding the scheme-dependent issues over to a later phase as the least imperfect option.
- 15Kevin Demirci Properties Limited v Huw Griffiths Architects Limited[2026] EWHC 353 (TCC)A claimant had pleaded a false factual allegation, and the defendant sought to strike out the claim and bring contempt proceedings. Mr Alan Bates dismissed both applications, allowing the claim to continue on a corrected basis.
- 16UK Global Healthcare Limited v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care[2026] EWHC 561 (TCC)The Department of Health sought summary judgment on a multi-million pound counterclaim and to strike out the supplier's claim in a medical supplies dispute. Mr Justice Constable held the issues were not suitable for summary determination and dismissed the application.
- 17Município De Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor[2026] EWHC 73 (TCC)After the Stage 1 trial of the mass claim arising from the Fundao dam collapse in Brazil, the court dealt with costs and permission to appeal. Mrs Justice O Farrell ordered the defendants to pay costs with £43 million on account and interest, and refused permission to appeal.
- 18Laing O'Rourke Delivery Limited v Shepperton Studios Limited[2026] EWHC 771 (TCC)Following the Part 8 dispute over the validity of pay less notices, the court assessed the costs of those proceedings. Mr Simon Lofthouse KC fixed the assessed Part 8 costs at a total of just over 55,000 pounds.
- 19MJS Projects (March) Limited V RPS Consulting Services Limited[2026] EWHC 884 (TCC)After the claim over a container park was dismissed, the losing claimant argued the defendant should get no costs for refusing to mediate and changing its expert evidence. HHJ Kelly applied the usual order, refused indemnity costs and ordered £309,673.80 on account.
- 20GMC Utilities Group Ltd v Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd[2026] EWHC 885 (TCC)After a performance bond call was compromised by paying the sum into escrow, the parties disputed whether the subcontractor had commenced proceedings in time to keep the money there. Mr Simon Lofthouse KC held its Part 7 claim satisfied the agreement, so the escrow sum stayed in place while the dispute went to arbitration.
No judgment in this category matches that search.