Scenic International Group Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Richard Adenaike & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1178 (Ch)
Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation v Sprite Aviation No 6 DAC
11 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 797 (Comm)
High Court
Two companies went to court, and one had to pay the other's legal costs. The winning company asked for £42,000, but the judge thought that was too much and only made them pay £22,000 because they used too many expensive lawyers. The judge decided this quickly without going into all the details.
Key Facts
- •Costs dispute following a preliminary issue hearing in the Commercial Court.
- •Defendant's costs bill totalled £42,267.31.
- •Claimant argued for significantly reduced costs (£9,540.92), citing excessive hourly rates, inappropriate use of senior fee earners, excessive time spent, and unnecessary instruction of two counsel.
- •Defendant argued that two hearings were necessary, specialist expertise justified higher rates, and the use of senior fee earners was cost-effective.
- •The judge conducted a summary assessment of costs.
Legal Principles
Summary assessment of costs in the Commercial Court.
Commercial Court Guide
Outcomes
The Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant £22,000 in costs.
The judge accepted the Claimant's argument that only one junior counsel should have been instructed, significantly reducing the claimed costs. Other arguments regarding hourly rates, fee earner grades, and time spent were given less weight.
Similar Cases
Flavio de Carvalho Pinto Viegas & Ors v José Luis Cutrale & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2778 (Comm)
Benjamin Gilbert & Anor Broadoak Private Finance Ltd (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 2046 (Comm)
Betta Oceanway Company v SC Tomini Trading SR (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 2068 (Comm)
Tanka Thakali & Ors v Navin Kumar Gauchan & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3032 (SCCO)