Libyan Investment Authority & Ors. v Mr Roger Milner King & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 434 (Ch)
Camberley Group Plc & Ors v Paul Foster & Ors
8 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 248 (KB)
High Court
A company sued three ex-employees. The company mostly won, but the judge split up the legal costs. One ex-employee pays all costs for one part of the case because he lied. The other two pay some costs for other parts, but not too much. Because the judge felt one of the ex-employees was particularly dishonest, they had to pay more of the company's legal bills.
Key Facts
- •Dispute between Camberley Group PLC and three former employees (Foster, Pilling, Churrat) involving breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unlawful interference, misappropriation, and unjust enrichment.
- •Claims included a 'Warranty Claim' (false invoices) against Foster and a 'Damages Claim' (conspiracy to damage C3) against Foster and Pilling.
- •Unjust enrichment claims involved false mileage claims (abandoned) and overpaid wages against Pillings.
- •Five-day trial with substantial documentary evidence.
- •Claimants largely successful, but Defendants succeeded on some significant issues.
Legal Principles
General rule: Unsuccessful party pays costs of successful party; court may make different order.
CPR 44.2(2)
Court considers all circumstances, including party conduct, partial success, and settlement offers.
CPR 44.2(4)-(6)
Proportionate costs orders reflecting success on different issues are appropriate.
Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd [2008] EWHC 2280 (TCC) and Grupo Hotelero Urvasco SA v Carey Value Added SL [2013] EWHC 1732 (Comm)
Indemnity costs may be awarded where party conduct is 'out of the norm'.
Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 879
Outcomes
Foster to pay all Claimants' costs of the Warranty Claim.
Foster lost on all aspects of the claim.
Foster and Pilling jointly and severally liable for 66% of Claimants' costs for the Damages Claim.
Partial success on the Damages Claim; conspiracy proved, but loss not fully established.
No order on false mileage claim (Claim 10).
Claim abandoned; other false expenses admitted.
Pillings jointly and severally liable for costs of unjust enrichment claim (Claim 11), capped at £10,000.
Low damages recovered but dishonest conduct established.
Damages Claim costs assessed on indemnity basis; others on standard basis.
Foster and Pilling's conduct in relation to the Damages Claim was 'out of the norm' due to their dishonest evidence regarding the Business Plan.
Enforcement of costs orders against Foster stayed pending financial remedies hearing.
To consider Mr. Foster's financial circumstances.
Similar Cases
Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Limited v James David Hadley & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2670 (Ch)
Stonegate Farmers Limited & Ors v Michael Richard John Kent & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3051 (Ch)
Ana Tomic & Anor v The Residences by Damoor Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1348 (Comm)
Edel Marie Magee & Ors v John Wade Crocker & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2353 (Ch)