Preiskel & Co Secures Major Costs Win for Groupe Hardis in Commercial Dispute
Preiskel & Co has successfully defended Groupe Hardis SAS against a commercial claim at the County Court at Central London, slashing a claim brought by IT recruitment agency Anson McCade Limited from over £100,000 to a judgment of just £5,000. The Dispute Resolution team also secured an order that the Claimant pay the Defendant’s legal costs, including 90% of the budget.
In a judgment handed down by HHJ Grout on 18 December 2025, the Court found that the Defendant had been “successful on the main issue at trial” and had been drawn into “unnecessarily protracted and disproportionate proceedings”. The costs obtained were significantly greater than the amount awarded to the Claimant, representing a win for the Defendant and the firm.
Background
The dispute arose from five unpaid IT recruitment placements made between 2017 and 2018. On 5 October 2022, the Claimant made a pre-action Part 36 offer seeking £61,750 plus costs. Rather than formally responding, the Defendant’s former solicitors, Ashfords LLP, sent an email on 27 October 2022 confirming that payment had been made directly to the Claimant “on the basis of full and final settlement”.
The payments, made on 28 October 2022 (the “October Payments“), comprised €53,592 in respect of the invoices and £17,180.78 in statutory interest, together exceeding the Claimant’s Part 36 settlement sum. However, as Ashfords’ email made no express reference to the Part 36 offer, the Claimant later relied on the “full and final settlement” wording in advancing its claim.
On 31 July 2023, despite having already received substantial payment, the Claimant issued proceedings seeking £104,488.42, arguing that the October Payments had been conditional and that further statutory interest, compensation and recovery costs had continued to accrue.
The Key Issue at Trial
By the time of trial on 13 October 2025, it was established that the October Payments satisfied the underlying invoices and accrued interest. The central issue was now whether those payments had been tendered unconditionally as part-payment of the claim.
Preiskel & Co successfully argued that the payments were unconditional, and the “full and final settlement” wording did not impose a legal condition on the payments themselves. The Court accepted that analysis in full finding that the Claimant remained free to retain the monies paid while pursuing any residual claim it believed remained outstanding, as indeed they went on to do.
HHJ Grout held that the October Payments had been tendered unconditionally as part-payment of the claim on 27/28 October 2022. That finding proved decisive. Having rejected the Claimant’s attempt to characterise the payments as conditional, the Court reduced the value of the claim from £104,488.42 to just £5,000, comprising:
- £4,590 in reasonable recovery costs under section 5A(2A) of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (the “Act”); and
- £410 in fixed statutory compensation under section 5A(2).
Defeating the Claimant’s Part 36 Argument
At the subsequent costs hearing on 18 November 2025, the Claimant argued that, having ultimately obtained judgment for £5,000, it had beaten its own pre-action Part 36 offer and was therefore entitled to the enhanced costs consequences under CPR Part 36, including the additional 10% award. In support of that position, the Claimant relied heavily on the Court of Appeal’s decision in El Gamal v Synergy Lifestyle Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 210, arguing that the October Payments should be treated as reducing the Part 36 offer correspondingly.
Preiskel & Co successfully resisted that argument. HHJ Grout accepted the Defendant’s submission that the “Settlement Sum” contained within the Claimant’s Part 36 offer was distinct from the Claimant’s recoverable costs under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. The Court found that the October Payments had already exceeded the Settlement Sum itself, meaning that, at most, only a limited costs issue remained unresolved.
The Court further held that the principle in El Gamal had “no meaningful application” on the facts of the case, given that the October Payments had already surpassed the substantive settlement figure sought by the Claimant.
HHJ Grout also accepted that the Claimant had embarked upon needless and disproportionate litigation in seeking to recover sums that had already been paid. The Court observed that, if the Claimant wished to pursue the limited residual dispute that remained, the matter should properly have proceeded as a small claim rather than as six-figure multi-track litigation.
The Court ultimately ordered the Claimant to pay in excess of £90,000 towards Groupe Hardis’ costs, including 90% of the Defendant’s budgeted costs, reflecting the Court’s view that the litigation had been pursued disproportionately.
The judgment is an important reminder of the risks associated with disproportionate commercial litigation and the importance of properly analysing the legal effect of part-payments made during settlement negotiations. It also demonstrates how careful evaluation of Part 36 of the CPR and tender principles can fundamentally alter the trajectory of complex litigation.
Following judgment, the Claimant has made two separate applications for permission to appeal: one on the merits and one on costs, the latter centring on HHJ Grout’s treatment of the Part 36 offer.
Groupe Hardis was represented by Preiskel & Co, led by Rob Kay (Head of Disputes) and Sabina Leshchenko (Associate), instructing Joseph Mahon of 5 Paper Buildings as counsel.
Preiskel & Co’s dispute resolution team delivers cost‑effective, strategically managed solutions for complex commercial and cross‑border disputes, with a strong focus on early assessment, cost control and efficient resolution through ADR where possible. For advice please contact Rob Kay or Sabina Leshchenko.
The material in this article is only for general review of the topics covered and does not constitute legal advice. No legal or business decision should be based on its content. This article is written in the English language. Preiskel & Co LLP is not responsible for any translation of all or part of its content into any language.