What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 5pm Tuesday 9am - 5pm Wednesday 9am - 5pm Thursday 9am - 5pm Friday 9am - 5pm

TMC Legal, 46-48 The Green, High Wycombe (2026)

31/01/2026

THE EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF KENNETH COLLINS V THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THAMES VALLEY POLICE [2026] EWHC 117 (SCCO)

"The provisions of sub-paragraph 26.9(10)(e)(i) are not exclusive but inclusive. The action, in other words, must simply include a claim for an intentional tort. It need not be exclusively or primarily characterised by such a cause of action. The reference in the Letter of Claim to 'wrongful interference with goods' suggests clearly – and, in my view, sensibly and inevitably – an alternative claim in conversion and/or trespass to chattels. The unfortunate destruction of Mr Collins's fi****ms and ammunition was self-evidently the consequence of an intentional act on the part of the Defendant."

https://tmclegal.co.uk/fixed-recoverable-costs-police-claims-intentional-tort/

Collins v Thames Valley Police [2026] EWHC 117 (SCCO). Police claims with intentional torts escape fixed recoverable costs.

29/01/2026

SMITH AND OTHERS V CAMPBELL AND OTHERS [2026] EWHC 144 (Ch)

"With the benefit of hindsight, the Trustees did not propose a complete or perfect solution (e.g. Malcolm's position was not addressed in that open proposal). However, trustees are not deprived of their right of indemnity because they have not acted perfectly. The Trustees' open proposal, made at an early stage, recognised the breakdown in relations that had occurred, and that the Claimants' criticisms related primarily to Paddy. In all the circumstances, the Trustees' proposals were a good faith and reasonable attempt to address those criticisms in a constructive fashion."

https://tmclegal.co.uk/trustee-indemnity-trust-fund-retained-removal/

Smith v Campbell [2026] EWHC 144 (Ch). Trustee indemnity from trust fund retained despite removal after early settlement offers.

27/01/2026

BIGGAR V HOWARD KENNEDY LLP [2026] EWHC 132 (SCCO)

"I do accept that when considering whether a solicitor's costs should be limited by reference to inadequate or non-existent estimates of future costs, the court can take into account that a client, in consequence, lost the opportunity to make different, less expensive choices. It does not follow that a client who, on receipt of better estimates, quite evidently would have made exactly the same choices can still make a credible case for limiting the solicitor's costs. That seems to me to be the Claimant's difficulty."

https://tmclegal.co.uk/special-circumstances-section-70-biggar-howard-kennedy/

Biggar v Howard Kennedy [2026] EWHC 132 (SCCO). No special circumstances under section 70 for bill assessment.

26/01/2026

FIELDFISHER LLP V SCHERBAKOVA & ANOR [2026] EWHC 104 (SCCO)

"The Defendants have not proven impecuniosity. At best they seek to infer it, and make arguments that suggest the burden is on a receiving party to show that a paying party is not impecunious. It is also something of a curiosity that whilst claiming impecuniosity, the 2nd Defendant has been able to secure €200,000 to fund opposing the imposition of the unless order. Further, one cannot ignore that despite accepting a liability to make further payments to the Claimant, and the apparent ability to secure a six-figure sum to pay their currently instructed lawyers, the Defendants did not even contemplate using those funds to at least part pay the interim sum ordered and thereafter seek to agree or apply for an extension of time to pay the balance."

https://tmclegal.co.uk/unless-order-impecuniosity-evidence

Fieldfisher v Scherbakova [2026] EWHC 104 (SCCO). Impecuniosity must be evidenced, not inferred, to resist an unless order for unpaid costs.

21/01/2026

MUNICÍPIO DE MARIANA v BHP GROUP (UK) LTD [2026] EWHC 73 (TCC)

"I start by acknowledging that this is very complex litigation, it has required dedicated work by many lawyers and experts for over 7 years and there have been significant challenges for the disparate groups of claimants, many of whom live in rural areas of Brazil, in pursuing these claims in this jurisdiction. Notwithstanding those difficulties, the costs are extraordinarily high and the level of detail provided very limited. It is noted that the costs will be subject to a detailed assessment in due course but the paucity of information available to the court at this stage indicates that a very cautious approach should be taken to the broad-brush assessment of the likely level of recovery of these costs for the purpose of determining a payment on account."

https://tmclegal.co.uk/payment-on-account-bhp-dam-litigation-43m/

Município de Mariana v BHP [2026] EWHC 73 (TCC). O'Farrell J orders £43m payment on account from £189m claim, excluding sign-up costs.

19/01/2026

DOROTHY HOUSE V HELME [2026] EWHC 75 (Ch) (HIGH COURT, CHANCERY DIVISION)

"In my judgment, the circumstances of this case clearly demonstrate that the claim and application made by the claimants on 12 December 2025 were hostile litigation. This litigation was at the outset resisted vigorously by the defendants, who challenged all the claimants' various complaints about their behaviour, saw no reason for their being removed, and refused to consent to such an order. The fact that they later changed their mind does not take away from that fact. In my judgment, the defendants were never entitled to an indemnity in respect of the costs of this litigation, because they entered into it and conducted it on their own behalf, and not on that of the estate."

https://tmclegal.co.uk/executor-estate-indemnity-hostile-removal-litigation/

Dorothy House v Helme [2026] EWHC 75 (Ch). Executor estate indemnity lost when hostile removal litigation conducted on own behalf.

19/01/2026

THE WINROS PARTNERSHIP V GLOBAL ENERGY HORIZONS CORPORATION [2025] EWHC 3362 (Ch) (HIGH COURT)

"The question is whether the existence of a choice for Rosenblatt to end CFA-3 by other means, renders a restitutionary remedy possible. In my judgement, it cannot, because CFA-3 has already articulated what is to happen in this kind of case: see clause 14.3. The existence of the common law right in damages is not to open the way to an alternative restitutionary claim that is duplicative of clause 14.3: that would be to upset the considered exercise in risk allocation expressly contained in CFA-3, dealing with precisely this case. The common law remedy is a 'last resort', really intended for those cases not anticipated in clause 14."

https://tmclegal.co.uk/cfa-termination-repudiation-winros-global-energy/

Winros v Global Energy [2025] EWHC 3362 (Ch). CFA termination by repudiation bars quantum meruit where contract expressly allocates risk.

19/01/2026

SMITHSTONE V TRANMOOR PRIMARY SCHOOL [2026] EWCA Civ 13 (Court of Appeal)

"Accordingly, while Judge Baddeley understandably regarded Mundy v Tui as binding on him, I would overrule it on the issue of principle. That is not, however, enough to get the Claimant home... The difficulty for the Claimant's solicitors on the facts is that liability was never determined. If the Defendant had admitted liability or DDJ Khan had tried the case and found the Defendant 100% liable, there would be a case for awarding the Claimant, pursuant to CPR 36.17, costs relating to the issue of liability from the date of the Claimant's 90:10 offer. But that is not what happened. It cannot be said that the outcome of the case was a finding, even on liability, more advantageous to the Claimant than a 90:10 apportionment of liability. I therefore consider that CPR 36.17(4) does not apply on the facts of this case and that DDJ Khan was right to decide that the Claimant's solicitors were limited to recovering fixed costs."

https://tmclegal.co.uk/part-36-liability-offers-smithstone-overrules-mundy/

Smithstone v Tranmoor [2026] EWCA Civ 13 overrules Mundy. Part 36 liability offers can engage CPR 36.17(4) only if liability is determined.

18/01/2026

PERRETT v WOLFERSTANS LLP [2026] EWHC 50 (SCCO)

"I do not think that the quotations relied upon by the claimant from the Court of Appeal in cases such as Kilby support his argument. The decision of Simon J in Nizami expressly refers to 'an agreed scheme of recovery' which was easily calculated and was fair as a whole even if the sums were too high in some cases and too low in others, if calculated purely in respect of the individual case. That 'scheme' plainly related to recoverable costs and the fairness referred to the swings and roundabouts nature of the scheme as a whole. It cannot be said that this means the remuneration recovered is a fair sum as between the solicitor and client since that has nothing to do with their contractual terms."

https://tmclegal.co.uk/solicitor-client-costs-assessment-fixed-recoverable-costs/

Perrett v Wolferstans LLP [2026] EWHC 50 (SCCO). Fixed costs are not the benchmark for solicitor client costs assessment.

15/01/2026

GETTY IMAGES (US), INC & ORS V STABILITY AI LTD [2025] EWHC 3419 (Ch) (HIGH COURT)

"The claimants ran the three very significant claims to which I have already referred at trial, only to abandon them in their entirety prior to closing submissions... Of the remaining claims, the claimants won the Trade Mark Infringement Claim in part. They lost the Secondary Infringement of Copyright Claim… it is very difficult to see how the claimants can sensibly be regarded as the overall winners... The defendant has substantially denied the claimant the success that it sought in these proceedings… I consider that a 25% reduction should be made to the claimants' costs of that claim, to reflect the fact that they failed on a number of significant issues… Doing the best I can... I am going to take 17.5% as representing the costs of the Trade Mark Infringement Claim... The application of the further 25%... will go some way towards addressing the overlap issues... This means that there will be a 30.6% reduction in the defendant's overall costs."

https://tmclegal.co.uk/hospira-three-question-test-costs-getty-images-stability-ai/

Getty Images v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 3419 (Ch). Hospira three-question test costs framework applied to mixed IP litigation. TMC Legal

15/01/2026

NATIONAL HOUSE-BUILDING COUNCIL V HODSON DEVELOPMENTS LTD & ORS [2025] EWHC 3438 (TCC)

"Whilst the date of 30 May was not in terms set out in that letter... nevertheless it does seem to me that it would not have been a difficult exercise by any stretch of the imagination to work out when 21 days before 20 June was; or indeed, as a responsible director of a company, to ask when it was. It does not appear that Mr Hodson actually did that at any time."

https://tmclegal.co.uk/cpr-3-14-relief-sanctions-refused/

NHBC v Hodson [2025] EWHC 3438 (TCC). CPR 3.14 relief sanctions refused after solicitors' withdrawal. Denton test applied strictly.

15/01/2026

LIMBU & ORS v DYSON TECHNOLOGY LTD & ORS [2026] EWHC 38 (KB) (HIGH COURT)

"This was therefore a meritorious and reasonable application that was pursued somewhat aggressively and without proper regard to the parties' duty under r.1.3. In my judgment, the appropriate costs order is that the claimants should pay 50% of the defendants' costs of the strike-out application... I accept Mr Craven's argument that to spend over £60,000 on this issue was both unreasonable and disproportionate... this application did not remotely justify over 100 hours' work on the documents (including over 12 hours' work on costs) and over 8 hours' attendance on counsel."

https://tmclegal.co.uk/summary-assessment-disproportionate-costs-limbu-dyson/

Limbu v Dyson [2026] EWHC 38 (KB). Pepperall J assessed reasonable costs at £12,000—not £61,366 claimed—on summary assessment.

TMC Legal

31/01/2026

29/01/2026

27/01/2026

26/01/2026

21/01/2026

19/01/2026

19/01/2026

19/01/2026

18/01/2026

15/01/2026

15/01/2026

15/01/2026

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Monday	9am - 5pm
Tuesday	9am - 5pm
Wednesday	9am - 5pm
Thursday	9am - 5pm
Friday	9am - 5pm