Pradeep Morjaria & Ors v Camran Mirza & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2222 (Ch)
Viarentis Property Management Limited & Anor v Viagefi 1 Limited & Ors
22 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2662 (KB)
High Court
Two companies successfully sued other companies for money owed, but the judge only gave them half their legal costs back because they made some mistakes in their initial bill. Even though they won the main case, their mistakes meant they didn't deserve all their legal costs back. The judge carefully weighed the wins and losses of both sides before deciding.
Key Facts
- •Claimants (Viarentis Property Management Ltd and Vectryss Ltd) successfully claimed fees (€554,771.40) and loans (€63,364.44) against Defendants (various Viagefi companies).
- •Dispute arose over contractual interest on fees (claimed €158,947.43) and costs.
- •Contractual clauses 8.2 and 8.6 stipulated interest at Bank of England base rate + 2% on outstanding fees, payable 14 days after invoice submission.
- •Defendants argued interest should only accrue after correctly calculated invoices, citing errors in Claimants' original invoices.
- •Claimants argued that while invoices were a precondition to legal proceedings, errors in calculation only affected the quantum, not the right to interest.
- •The Court considered the overall success of the parties in determining costs, given the substantial counterclaim from the Defendants concerning overvaluations in the Claimants’ invoices.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of contractual clauses; identification of successful party for costs purposes.
CPR 44.2, Kastor Navigation v Axa Global Risks [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 119, Travellers Casualty v Sun Life [2006] EWHC 2885 (Comm), Straker v Tudor Rose [2007] EWCA Civ 368, A L Barnes Ltd v Time Talk (UK) Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 402, Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC [2018] EWHC 1123 (QB)
Outcomes
Claimants entitled to contractual interest at 2% above base rate from 14 days after invoice submission, despite errors in invoice calculations.
The Court held that bona fide invoices, even if overstated, satisfy the precondition for claiming fees. Errors affect the quantum, not the right to interest. The commercial context of the agreements supports this interpretation.
Claimants awarded 50% of their costs.
While the Claimants were the overall successful party financially, a substantial deduction was made due to their failure on major issues, particularly those relating to invoice overvaluations. The Court balanced the overall success of the Claimants with the significant time and expense involved in defending the overvaluation claims.