Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation v Sprite Aviation No 6 DAC
[2024] EWHC 797 (Comm)
Scenic International Group Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Richard Adenaike & Ors
16 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1178 (Ch)
High Court
A company won a court case and wanted to recover its legal costs. The judge thought the £36,000 cost was too high because the case wasn't very complicated and the lawyers charged too much. The judge also penalized them for filing paperwork late. The judge reduced the legal costs to £23,235.
Key Facts
- •Claimant sought continuation of pre-judgment freezing orders against defendants.
- •First Defendant appeared in person, representing himself and several other defendants.
- •Claimant initially failed to prepare a schedule of costs for summary assessment.
- •Claimant's costs were initially over £36,000 (excluding VAT).
- •The application to continue the freezing orders was deemed not particularly complex given default judgments already obtained.
- •Hourly rates charged by Claimant's solicitors were above guideline rates.
- •Claimant's costs schedule was filed late, violating Practice Direction 44, para 9.5.
Legal Principles
Costs on relatively routine applications for freezing orders should be summarily assessed unless it is disproportionate to incur the costs of preparing a schedule.
Practice Direction 44, para 9.2(b)
Summary assessment is more efficient and the judge who heard the application is better positioned to assess costs.
Practice Direction 44, para 9.2(b)
Failure to comply with PD 44, para 9.5 (filing a costs schedule 24 hours before the hearing) without reasonable excuse will be considered when deciding on costs.
Practice Direction 44, para 9.6
Costs should be proportionate and reasonable, considering guideline hourly rates for solicitors.
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v LG Display Co Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 466
Outcomes
The court refused to order a detailed assessment of costs and instead directed summary assessment.
Summary assessment is more efficient and the judge is better placed to assess costs.
The court reduced the claimed costs from over £36,000 to £23,235.
The original costs were deemed disproportionate and unreasonable, given the relatively straightforward nature of the application, excessive hourly rates, errors in the schedule and late filing of the schedule.