Simple comparison between each side’s costs “not enough” to find bill unreasonable

A court cannot say that one party’s costs are unreasonably high because they are substantially greater than the other’s, the High Court has ruled.

In Monex Europe Ltd v Pothecary and Anor [2019] EWHC 2204 (QB), the High Court had rejected the claimant’s application for an injunction against the defendants and decided to assess the costs summarily.

The defendants sought £85,446, which the claimant objected to on the basis that the sum was “unreasonably high” compared with its own costs of £44,669.

Clive Sheldon QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, said it was “not appropriate” for the court simply to compare the two sets of costs and reach such a conclusion: “It is necessary to look at the specific items for which costs are claimed.”

He continued: “These proceedings were plainly important to each of the defendants, and they were entitled to be properly represented, putting forward their best defences. However, their defences were essentially the same, and the bulk of their factual evidence was the same, or very similar.

“As a result, there was bound to have been a fair degree of duplication in the work done, given that two different fee-earners (supervised by a partner) were engaged to work on their respective witness statements.

“In the circumstances, it is not proportionate for the defendants to recover all of the costs spent on attending on them by the junior fee-earners, and spent by the junior fee-earners on working on their witness statements.”

The judge reduced the cost associated with two of the junior fee-earners for duplication and for excessive time spent on one of the defendants’ statements, and various other elements, slicing £11,405 off the bill and leaving the claimant to pay £74,041.

The claimant challenged the hourly rate charged by the Costs Lawyer instructed by the defendants, saying that a rate of £120 per hour, as opposed to £250, was appropriate.

Mr Sheldon QC ruled: “I do not consider that it was disproportionate to use experienced Costs Lawyer to work on the schedule, which I found helpful in making this assessment.”

William McCormick QC (instructed by Shakespeare Martineau) for the claimant, with Caspar Glyn QC (instructed by Penningtons Manches) for the defendant.

Exclusive Access

Members only article

This article is exclusively for ACL members. Please log in to proceed, or click the button below to fill out an application from and become a part of our professional community.

Post details

Post type
Costs News
Published date
21 Aug 2019

Fill this form out to be notified when booking goes live.

Your Full Name
Hidden
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.