Key Facts
- •Mr. George Vatistas applied to intervene in proceedings between Betta Oceanway Company (Claimant) and SC Tomini Trading SR (Defendant).
- •Vatistas' applications to intervene and be joined as a defendant were dismissed.
- •The court considered costs applications from the Claimant and Defendant against Vatistas.
- •The Claimant claimed £54,450 in costs, while the Defendant claimed £93,199.68.
- •The court summarily assessed costs, reducing the claims to £40,000 for the Claimant and £70,000 for the Defendant.
Legal Principles
The court has jurisdiction to make a costs order against an unsuccessful applicant who is a party to the applications.
CPR r.3.1(2)(m), CPR r.19.2(2)
The unsuccessful party generally pays costs (CPR r.44.2).
CPR r.44.2
Costs should be proportionate and reasonable.
Implicit in the court's assessment of costs
Outcomes
Vatistas' applications to intervene and be joined as a defendant were dismissed.
The court found no merit in Vatistas' arguments; he acted to further his own interests and was unsuccessful.
Vatistas was ordered to pay the Claimant's costs (£40,000) and the Defendant's costs (£70,000).
The Claimant and Defendant were successful parties; the court summarily assessed their costs, reducing the amounts claimed due to concerns about proportionality and reasonableness.