18 St John Street costs specialists, Darren Malone and James Miller, analyse the High Court decision in Irama PTE Limited v Formark Scaffolding (Holdings) Limited [2026] EWHC 1681 (KB).
Darren Malone and James Miller, instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP for the Respondent, successfully resisted a renewed application for permission to appeal before Mr Justice Griffiths.
The decision highlights three recurring issues in costs litigation: (i) the essential requirement for compliant Points of Dispute (“PODS”) when seeking to challenge a Default Costs Certificate (“DCC”), (ii) the limits of Mazur in relation to rights of audience, and (iii) the court’s willingness to impose a Civil Restraint Order where applications are repeatedly found to be “Totally Without Merit”.
Default Costs Certificate: Points of Dispute remain essential
Costs practitioners will be well aware that a DCC under CPR Part 47 is conclusive unless properly challenged. That requires compliant PODS, which were absent throughout.
Despite the Appellant’s procedural failure, HHJ Bloom nevertheless considered whether there was any underlying merit in setting aside the DCC. She found none. Without PODS, there was no proper basis upon which the assessment process could be reopened.
Griffiths J agreed. Describing HHJ Bloom’s approach as “generous”, the Judge concluded that the challenge lacked any proper foundation and the outcome was “inevitable”.
The decision serves as a further reminder that regardless of any ancillary arguments, a party seeking to set aside a DCC cannot sidestep the mandatory requirement to serve compliant PODS.
Rights of audience and Mazur
The Appellant appeared as a director but was reluctantly granted discretionary rights of audience pursuant to CPR 39.6 and Charles P Kinnell & Co Ltd v Harding, Wace & Co [1918] 1 KB 405.
Ironically, the appeal also relied upon allegations that Mr Malone had acted without authority before HHJ Bloom because he was not authorised to conduct litigation. That argument was firmly rejected.
Griffiths J reaffirmed the distinction drawn by the Legal Services Act 2007 between conducting litigation and exercising rights of audience. They are separate reserved legal activities and a lack of authorisation for one does not prevent a person from carrying out the other.
The Judge further confirmed that Schedule 3 to the Act permits the court to grant rights of audience in individual proceedings. Where permission is granted, the advocate is an exempt person for the purposes of that hearing.
Accordingly, reliance upon Mazur was misplaced. Mazur concerns the conduct of litigation, not court-authorised advocacy. In any event, Griffiths J held that even if there had been a procedural irregularity (which there was not), it would not have affected the validity of the order under challenge. The appeal was concerned with the correctness of the order itself, not the status of those appearing before the court.
Civil Restraint Order
The High Court also imposed a Limited Civil Restraint Order against both the Appellant company and its director.
The court noted the history of repeated applications, which were certified as “Totally Without Merit”. Given that history and the renewed application for permission to appeal also being deemed “Totally Without Merit”, the threshold for a Limited Civil Restraint Order was met.
The Order restricts the Appellant company and its director from making any further applications in the proceedings without the permission of the court.
A copy of the judgment is below.
Darren Malone and James Miller
9th July 2026
For more information on James Miller, Darren Malone and the Costs Department at 18 St John Street, please click their names to see their profile, or contact Senior Clerk Katie Brown by email or on 0161 278 1800.