High Court says QuidPay’s initial beneficial ownership claim was unsustainable and should not have been pursued
QuidPay costs ruling: the High Court has ordered QuidPay Finance Limited to recover 65% of its costs of an injunction application after finding that its initial claim concerning beneficial ownership of funds was unsustainable and should never have been pursued.
Lance Ashworth KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Business and Property Courts, handed down the judgment on costs and consequential matters in Quidpay Finance Limited v Settlego Solutions Limited (T/A OpenPayd) on 20 August 2026. The judgment follows an earlier ruling on a preliminary issue, handed down on 30 July 2026.
OpenPayd had decided not to seek permission to appeal. The remaining issues before the court concerned the costs of the injunction application, preliminary issue applications and trial, together with interest on sums payable to QuidPay.
The court found that QuidPay had ultimately achieved part of what it had sought through the injunction application because the funds held in the reserve account were released. However, it had not obtained the lifting of the suspension on its account. The court concluded that QuidPay should therefore recover the costs of the injunction application, but not in full.
The key costs finding concerned QuidPay’s original allegation that funds held by OpenPayd were beneficially owned by QuidPay’s customers. QuidPay abandoned that argument on 15 May 2026, shortly before the injunction hearing. The court held that the claim was unsustainable and should never have been pursued.
The judge also criticised the use of that allegation as the basis for describing OpenPayd’s conduct as “unlawful, untenable and tantamount to deceit”, together with threats to report OpenPayd to the Financial Conduct Authority and publicise its conduct. The judgment said those steps were “entirely illegitimate”.
For solicitors, the practical point is that abandoning an unsustainable allegation does not necessarily prevent it from affecting the eventual costs order. The court took account of the costs caused by QuidPay’s abandoned arguments and reduced the amount recoverable by 35%, leaving QuidPay entitled to 65% of its injunction application costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
The court ordered a payment on account of £113,381.78 towards those costs. The underlying statement of costs totalled £290,722.50, while the hourly rates claimed were up to 50% above the 2026 Guideline Hourly Rates for London 1.
OpenPayd was also awarded £7,000 on account of its costs for the preliminary issue applications. The judge found that the hourly rates claimed were excessive between opposing parties, noting that they were around 235% of the Guideline Hourly Rates.
The parties had agreed that OpenPayd would pay QuidPay’s costs of the preliminary issue trial, subject to detailed assessment. A payment of £110,731.70 was ordered on account.
The court also awarded interest on the sums that OpenPayd was required to pay QuidPay. The amounts of €2,453,717.89 and £7 million should have been paid when the agreements terminated on 27 May 2026, but were not paid until 7 August 2026.
The judge applied an interest rate of 1% above base rate, giving a total rate of 4.75%, finding that QuidPay should be compensated for being kept out of money it should have received. The judgment calculated interest at £58,301.37 and €20,436.44, subject to the parties checking the calculations.