Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Betta Oceanway Company v SC Tomini Trading SR (Costs)

6 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2068 (Comm)
High Court
Someone tried to join a lawsuit, but the judge said no. The judge then made the person who tried to join pay the legal fees of the people already in the lawsuit. The judge thought the original fees were too high and lowered them before making the order.

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.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.