Background
In O’Sullivan v Trading 212 UK Ltd [2026] EWCC 32 (03 June 2026), the Claimant brought a claim arising from the Defendant’s closure of his trading account. The Court was highly critical of the parties’ approach to litigation, noting the apparent absence of ADR and the disproportionate escalation of a modest claim into a half‑million-pound costs dispute.
Costs awarded
Applying the usual rule, CPR 44.2(2), the Court held that the Defendant was the successful party and the Claimant should pay the Defendant’s costs.
However, the Court identified specific issues which justified departures from the default position.
- The Defendant’s late disclosure
Although the late disclosure did not affect the outcome, it prolonged the trial, triggered additional applications and increased costs for both parties.
The Court deprived the Defendant of its own costs for the disclosure phase and ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s costs caused by the late disclosure.
The Claimant claimed £54,115, whereas a total of £27,000 plus VAT was allowed.
- The Defendant’s Strike-Out application
This application was pursued based on the Claimant’s alleged conduct towards witnesses. Although the application was adjourned on the basis of undertakings, the Court found it was reasonable to bring some form of application.
The Defendant claimed £59,513.67, which the Court found disproportionate. A total of £15,000 was allowed.
The Court adopted a broad‑brush approach to summary assessment, emphasising that costs should be assessed by reference to overall proportionality rather than a line-by-line analysis.
The Court declined to engage in wider conduct-based arguments advanced by both parties, considering such analysis disproportionate.
Departing from the Costs Budgets
Despite CPR 3.18, the Court found good reason to depart from the approved costs budgets, resulting in downward revisions.
The Court looked at proportionality, the value of the claim and the relatively small number of documents. The Court also observed that the case had likely been misallocated and should not have proceeded on a multi-track basis of this scale. The court also raised concern about the hourly rates, finding significant reductions necessary.
Conclusion
The table below demonstrates the disparity between costs incurred and costs allowed, highlighting the severity of the disproportion:
| Party | Costs incurred | Costs allowed |
| Claimant | £246,426 | £32,400
(For the Defendant’s late disclosure) |
| Defendant | £452,456.26 | £128,750
|
Following set-off, the Claimant was ordered to pay £96,350.
This case serves as a clear reminder that the Court will closely scrutinise proportionality in litigation and may impose significant downward adjustments, even where costs budgets have been approved.
Katie Spencer is a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com.