Afan Valley Limited v Lupton Fawcett (a firm) & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2498 (KB)
Sportcal Global Communications Limited & Anor v Michael John Laflin
23 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 656 (KB)
High Court
Two companies fought over whether their former employee's lawyers could use their confidential documents in a different case. The judge said both sides were partly to blame for the expensive fight and made each pay a share of the legal bills.
Key Facts
- •Sportcal Global Communications Limited and Global Data PLC (Claimants) brought a claim against Michael John Laflin (Defendant).
- •Howard Kennedy LLP (HK), the Defendant's former solicitors, applied to use confidential documents from the Claimants' files in related proceedings.
- •The Claimants and HK disagreed on whether HK was permitted to use the documents under the existing court orders.
- •The application was heard by Senior Master Fontaine on 8 November 2022.
- •The Claimants incurred approximately £350,000 in costs retrieving documents taken by the Defendant.
- •The dispute centered around the interpretation of the “Relevant Orders” and the application of the Brandeaux principles.
- •The Claimants and HK subsequently reached an agreement on a confidentiality club.
Legal Principles
General rule on costs: Unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party.
CPR 44.2(2)
Court may make a different costs order considering all circumstances.
CPR 44.2(4)
Court expects parties to cooperate to assist the court.
CPR 31.22(1) and case law (OnePlus v Mitsubishi)
Brandeaux principles regarding solicitor's retention of client documents after ceasing representation.
Not explicitly cited, but mentioned in the judgment.
Outcomes
Claimants to pay 15% contribution to HK's costs up to the first judgment, excluding certain submissions.
Both parties shared responsibility for the costs; Claimants' conduct contributed significantly to the need for the application and the resulting costs. HK could have acted sooner to propose solutions.
Claimants to pay 100% of HK's costs for specific submissions (6-11 May 2022 and permission to appeal).
These costs were deemed solely attributable to the Claimants' actions.
No order for costs incurred after 28 June 2022.
The subsequent agreement rendered further costs unnecessary.
Claimants to pay an interim payment of £10,000.
To address the costs awarded to HK.
Similar Cases
Suzanne Merrills v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 1788 (Admin)
John Riordan & Ors v Moon Beever Solicitors
[2023] EWHC 659 (SCCO)
Stonegate Farmers Limited & Ors v Michael Richard John Kent & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3051 (Ch)
Ineos Upstream Limited & Ors v Joseph Boyd & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1756 (Ch)