Lloyds Developments Limited v Accor Hotel Services UK Limited

Summary

This ruling dealt with the costs of an application in a long-running dispute. The applicant had succeeded in obtaining substantial further security, but had failed on a subsidiary point about how document families should be disclosed.

Each side argued it was the successful party and should have its costs. The court had to decide who should pay, in what proportion, and then to assess the amount, where the paying party challenged the level of correspondence, the number of fee earners and an hourly rate above the guideline.

Mrs Justice Jefford ordered the paying party to pay 75 per cent of the summarily assessed costs, reflecting the applicant's overall success but its lack of success on the document families point and an issue of exaggeration, and she reduced the bill on assessment.

Background and facts

The application arose in litigation between Lloyds Developments and Accor Hotel Services. It combined a claim for substantial further security with a complaint about disclosure, in particular whether document families, such as emails and their attachments, had been properly disclosed together rather than broken up with attachments marked as not relevant.

The applicant obtained the substantial further security it sought, but did not succeed on the document families point. Both parties then contended for a costs order in their favour, and the court proceeded to a summary assessment of the costs.

The issue

The court had to decide which party was successful for the purposes of costs, what proportion of costs should be paid given partial success and a complaint of exaggeration, and how to assess the amount where the level of correspondence, the number of fee earners and the hourly rates were challenged.

The decision

Mrs Justice Jefford treated the applicant as the successful party overall, because the application had been necessary to obtain the further security:

"this application had to be issued in order to obtain substantial further security."Mrs Justice Jefford, paragraph 10

Success on the main relief did not carry a full costs order. The applicant had failed on the document families point, and there was an issue of exaggeration, and the judge reflected both by awarding a proportion rather than the whole:

"In those circumstances and taking account both of the issue of 'exaggeration' and the lack of success in relation to the family documents, I am going to deal with the matter of costs by ordering Lloyds to pay 75 per cent of whatever the sum is that I am about to summarily assess in relation to the costs bill."Mrs Justice Jefford, paragraph 14

On the assessment, the judge accepted that the correspondence in the case had been at an extraordinary level, and considered the complaint that too much work had been done by too many fee earners. She also addressed an hourly rate above the guideline for the fee earner's grade, noting that work done by a more junior person tends to require more supervision by senior people, and reduced the bill accordingly.

Practical implications

Winning the main relief does not guarantee all your costs. Where an applicant succeeds on the substance but loses a subsidiary point, or has exaggerated its position, the court will often award a percentage rather than the whole. A party seeking costs should be realistic about the parts of its application that did not succeed, because they will be reflected in the order.

Disclosure of document families matters, and getting it wrong has costs consequences. Breaking up families, by disclosing a parent document but marking its attachments as not relevant, invites challenge, and a party that succeeds in forcing proper disclosure or resists an unmeritorious complaint will be rewarded in costs, while the party at fault may lose part of its recovery.

Summary assessment is a real check on a bill. The court scrutinised the volume of correspondence, the number and seniority of the fee earners, and an hourly rate above the guideline. A receiving party should keep its costs proportionate and be ready to justify senior rates and heavy staffing, because the court will reduce a bill that does not stand up to that scrutiny.

Lloyds Developments Limited v Accor Hotel Services UK Limited [2026] EWHC 1238 (TCC), Technology and Construction Court, The Honourable Mrs Justice Jefford. Judgment given 12 May 2026.