Rostrum Leasing 1 DAC v Tri-MG Airlines Limited & Ors

Mr Nigel Cooper KC :

1. This is my judgment summarily assessing the Claimant’s costs of two applications dated the 14 April 2025 and 14 November 2025 (collectively “the Applications”). The Application dated 14 April 2025 was an application for permission to amend the Amended Claim Form and the Amended Particulars of Claim. The Application dated 14 November 2025 was for permission to amend and to provide for a deemed service date.

2. I have assessed the costs of these two applications summarily on paper following a case management conference on 12 December 2025, at which I made an Order ordering, inter alia, that the First to Third Defendants do pay the costs of the Applications (to include costs incurred in respect of the First to Third Defendants’ extension applications dated 04 July 2025 and 18 July 2025) incurred from 01 July 2025. I also set down a timetable for written submissions in the event that the parties could not agree the costs of the Applications.

3. The parties could not agree the costs of the Applications and accordingly I received written submissions on behalf of the First to Third Defendants in a letter from Kennedys dated 22 December 2025 and written submissions from the Claimant’s solicitors, Alius Law, also dated 22 December 2025 (accompanied by two reworked statements of costs).

4. The Claimant seeks costs in the sum of £49,419.60 in respect of the Application dated 14 April 2025 and in the sum of £10,556.50 in respect of the Application dated 14 November 2025.

5. In relation to the application dated 14 April 2025: i) The First to Third Defendants submit that (i) the appropriate guideline rate is London band 2 as the work is not heavy commercial work, (ii) the fees for counsel are excessive and to some extent properly fees for the CMC and (iii) the hours spent on the Defendants' application for an extension of time for serving evidence is too high as is the time spent on the witness statement of Ms. Bree Taylor. The Defendants submit that an appropriate sum for costs is no more than £25,000. ii) The Claimant submits that the work is appropriately London band 1 as it is high value commercial court claim concerning various valuable aircraft and engines. The level of counsel's fees is appropriate taking into account the Defendants active opposition to the amended pleadings including serving three substantial witness statements in response to the application and maintaining their opposition to the last moment. Further, an element of counsel's fees is appropriately within the costs claimed as the Claimant has incurred the fees of counsel having to argue the costs application. So far as the time spent on the extension applications and the witness statement of Ms. Bree Taylor are concerned, the time spent was a consequence of the detailed consideration which had to be given to the Defendants' extension applications and need for Ms. Taylor to respond to the three witness statements served by the Defendants in opposition to the application to amend.

6. Having considered both parties’ written submissions, I summarily assess the costs of the Application dated 14 April 2025 in the sum of £44,000.

7. I am satisfied that this is a sufficiently heavy and complex commercial action, which justifies an appropriate guideline rate of London band 1. However, I consider that there is some force to the First to Third Defendants’ criticisms of the level of counsel fees and to the time spent in relation to the extension applications and Ms. Taylor’s eighth witness statement, which justifies reducing the overall costs figure allowed in respect of the Application dated 14 April 2025 to £44,000.

8. In relation to the application dated 14 November 2025: i) The First to Third Defendants submit that part of the work on this application related to an issue on which the Claimant lost (namely deemed service). Further the figure for costs overall is too high given the nature of the application and the fact that the matter could have been dealt with at the CMC without an application. The Defendants submit that an appropriate figure for costs is no higher than £5,000. ii) The Claimant submits that I had already decided that the costs of this application would not be adjusted because the Claimant lost on the issue of deemed service. Further, the Claimant says, the majority of the Second Amendment Application concerned the Defendants' failure to sign a consent order for the amendments to which they had already indicated consent, along with clerical amendments. Likewise, the matter could not have been addressed at the CMC in circumstances where the Defendants had failed to sign the consent order and had gone silent after the vacation of the Claimant’s Application dated 14 April 2025.

9. I agree with the Claimant that the fact that the Claimant lost on the issue of deemed service is not a matter which affects either the incidence of costs or their summary assessment. Further I agree with the Claimant that the majority of the application was concerned with the First to Third Defendants’ failure to sign a consent order for the amendments to which they had already indicated consent along with some clerical amendments. It was appropriate for the Claimant to issue an Application in circumstances where the Defendants had failed to sign the consent order and gone silent after the vacation of the hearing. It does seem to me, however, that there should be an adjustment to the costs claimed by the Claimant to reflect what I consider is a reasonable overall sum to require the First to Third Defendants to pay. I consider that the appropriate sum to be paid in respect of the Application dated 14 November 2025 is £8,000 which allows a modest reduction in counsels’ fees as well as a modest reduction for the work done on documents.

10. Overall, therefore I summarily assess the sum to be paid by the First to Third Defendants to the Claimant in respect of the Applications in a total sum of £52,000. This sum is to be paid within 14 days of the date of my order confirming my summary assessment of the costs of the Applications.