High Court Smith v Rice
Approved judgment
Claim No: CC-2025-MAN-000031
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN MANCHESTER
CIRCUIT COMMERCIAL COURT
SITTING IN MANCHESTER
Manchester Civil Justice Centre,
1 Bridge Street West,
Manchester
M60 9DJ
BETWEEN:
MS REBECCA SMITH
Claimant
-and-
MR MARTIN RICE
Defendant
JUDGMENT
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10am on 24 September 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by email and by release to the National Archive,
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PEARCE
INTRODUCTION
By order dated 7 July 2025, I entered judgment for the Claimant and directed the parties to file documents relevant to the determination of the outstanding issues, namely the amount of the judgment and any consequential order for costs, with determination of those issues on paper. Those documents have now been received and this is my judgment on the outstanding issues.
By an email of 4 August 2025, the Defendant sought an adjournment of the determination of this issue for a period of eight weeks in order for him to “try and resolve this.” I was not persuaded that such an order was justified without clearer evidence as to what was to be gained by delay. Yet the wheels of justice turn with the pace of life and, in the event, a combination of annual leave and other work commitments has meant that I have not been able to deal with the judgment until a period at the end of the eight weeks sought by the Defendant, such that the consequential order that I make will not be sealed and served on the parties until at least eight weeks from the date of the Defendant’s email.
THE AMOUNT OF THE JUDGMENT
The Claimant relies upon the contents of the Particulars of Claim, which are verified by a statement of truth, and a skeleton argument from Mr Micheál Murphy of counsel.
Within the skeleton argument, the amounts claimed are the principal sum of £165,000 and interest of either £346,129.03 or £241,198.35. Those interest figures are calculated to 8 August 2025. The additional interest from that date until today (24 September 2025) is, making the former figure, as of today’s date, £353,709.67 (an additional 1 month at £5,000 per month and 16 days at £161.29 per day) and the latter figure £77,897.87 (47 additional days at £3.6.16 per day).
In an email of 31 July 2025, the Defendant appears to acknowledge indebtedness of £110,000 to the Claimant. However, he has not entered a defence nor is there any explanation from him, whether verified by a statement of truth or otherwise, as to why the principal sum claimed by the Claimant is incorrect. In the absence of any such material, I see no grounds to enter judgment for any principal sum other than that claimed in the Particulars of Claim, namely £165,000.
As for the claim for interest, the Claimant claims interest at the contractual rate pleaded in the Particulars of Claim. This is the only pleading on the issue and given the absence of evidence (or even submissions) to explain why it might be wrong, I adopt that method of calculation and give judgment for interest of £353,709.67.
COSTS
The order of 7 July 2025 gives judgment for costs against the Defendant. There has been no argument that cost should be assessed on the indemnity basis and accordingly I order that costs be paid on the standard basis.
I have reviewed the statement of costs within the bundle filed by the Claimant. The total amount claimed, £26,249.04, includes interest of £2999.84 and court fees of £8,250. The Claimant could not avoid paying these. The balance of fees for solicitors and counsel mostly fall comfortably within the range of what is reasonable and proportionate for a claim of this nature, even bearing in mind that any doubt in that regard is to be resolved in favour of the Defendant, as the paying party. I do not consider the hourly rates to be excessive for work of this nature.
However, I consider that some of the work on documents is beyond that which is reasonable, bearing in mind both he necessary work and the reasonable time that a fee earner paid at this rate would spend on the work:
Item 6 – consideration of strategy. I accept the sum work was justified here but in my judgment no more than 30 minutes can be justified.
Item 9 – consideration of service in Northern Ireland. A total of one hour is excessive and again I would allow 30 minutes.
Item 31 – I am unclear what “finalising all docs ready for issue” really means, where there is a separate charge for preparing the documents and I would disallow this entirely.
Item 45 – I consider 2.36 hours excessive for the costs statement and would allow 2 hours.
Item 47 – I consider 43 hours excessive for instructing counsel to prepare the skeleton argument and considering it once drafted. No skeleton argument was served by the Defendant so apart from time spent anticipating the document, no costs were in fact incurred. I would allow 1.305 hours for this item.
Item 48 – the time of 1.30 hours for considering this judgement and consequent recovery issues to be excessive and would allow 1 hour.
On my calculations, these adjudgments reduce the claim as follows:
Item | Fee earner | Reduction in time | Hourly rate | Reduction in amount |
6 | A | 00:30 | £235 | £117.50 |
9 | D | 00:30 | £148 | £72.00 |
31 | B | 00:30 | £275 | £137.50 |
45 | F | 00:36 | £300 | £180.00 |
47 | B | 01:30 | £275 | £412.50 |
48 | B | 00:30 | £275 | £137.50 |
TOTAL | £1,057.00 |
Accordingly, I reduce the costs claimed by £1,268.40 (£1,057 plus VAT at 20%), making the net sum allowed in the assessment the figure of £24,908.64. In my judgment, that figure is reasonable and proportionate.
TIME FOR PAYMENT
I note that within the Response Pack, the Defendant has included reference to his means. He has not formally requested time for payment nor made any offer. At this stage I do not consider that I have the necessary information to deal with this, not least because his other communication suggest that he may pay the debt by lump sum (having borrowed it from an acquaintance).
Since this is a Circuit Commercial Court case, matters of enforcement are referred to a District Judge at the relevant District Registry (here, Manchester) unless otherwise ordered (see A1.5 of the Circuit Commercial Court Guide). I see no reason to order otherwise here.