Specialists International
This Knowledge Check tests the costs judgment in MJS Projects (March) Limited v RPS Consulting Services Limited [2026] EWHC 884 (TCC). The underlying professional negligence claim concerned a container storage facility close to Felixstowe Port and had been dismissed.
The claimant argued that the successful defendant should lose its costs because it had refused mediation and because its expert changed part of his evidence shortly before trial. The defendant sought indemnity costs for the expert evidence phase because of criticisms of the claimant's expert and the conduct of his evidence.
Her Honour Judge Kelly applied the usual rule that costs follow the event. She found no unreasonable refusal to engage in alternative dispute resolution and no sufficient basis for indemnity costs, so the defendant's costs were ordered on the standard basis.
- The general costs rule under CPR 44.2
- The parties' pre-action and settlement conduct
- The distinction between mediation and other forms of ADR
- The defendant's request for the claimant's expert evidence
- The late calculations and the mass concrete taper issue
- The threshold for indemnity costs
- The court's criticisms of the claimant's expert
- The payment on account of costs