Flavio de Carvalho Pinto Viegas & Ors v José Luis Cutrale & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2778 (Comm)
Michael John Isaac v Tan Sri Dato'Vincent Tan & Anor
30 November 2022
[2022] EWHC 3478 (Ch)
High Court
The court decided who should pay the legal bills after a case. The winning side mostly won, but not completely, so they didn't get all the money they asked for. The judge adjusted the amount based on what happened in the case.
Key Facts
- •Costs hearing following trial in *Michael John Isaac v Tan Sri Dato' Vincent Tan & Cardiff City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd* [2022] EWHC 2023 (Ch).
- •Respondents successfully resisted the petition's main claim of unfair prejudice.
- •Respondents' incurred costs exceeded £125,000, with a budgeted allowance of approximately £552,000 (total roughly £677,000 plus VAT).
- •Petitioner partially succeeded on the share valuation issue.
- •Respondents' costs budget from June 2020 was a key factor in the costs determination.
- •The scope of the trial narrowed after the initial costs budgeting.
Legal Principles
In costs budgeting cases, the court generally adheres to approved budgets unless good reason exists to deviate.
CPR 3.18, *Thomas Pink Ltd v Victoria Secret* [2014] EWHC 3258 (Ch)
A 10% reduction from a party's budgeted costs is the maximum permissible deduction in cases with an approved costs budget.
*MacInnes v Gross (No 2)* [2017] EWHC 127 (QB)
The court has discretion to consider all circumstances when deciding costs orders under CPR 44.2.
CPR 44.2
Where costs are ordered subject to detailed assessment, a reasonable sum on account should be paid unless there's good reason not to.
CPR 44.2(8)
Outcomes
Respondents are entitled to costs, subject to detailed assessment.
Respondents were successful overall in resisting the unfair prejudice claim, despite findings of personal animosity from Mr. Tan. The partial success on valuation was considered less significant given the overall context.
Interim payment on account of costs ordered at 50% of incurred costs before June 2020 and 60% of the budgeted costs thereafter (plus 3% for costs management).
While the costs budget is not a perfect benchmark due to the narrowed scope of the trial, it is still a factor. The court exercised caution to account for this uncertainty, ordering a more conservative interim payment than initially requested by the Respondents.
Similar Cases
Tanka Thakali & Ors v Navin Kumar Gauchan & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3032 (SCCO)
Scenic International Group Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Richard Adenaike & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1178 (Ch)
CHIA-HSING WANG v FLOREAT PRIVATE LIMITED
[2023] EWHC 1123 (Comm)
Daniel McAteer v Hat & Mitre (in liquidation) & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1746 (Ch)