Key Facts
- •Quantum Care Limited and Mrs Gurpreet Gil Maag (Claimants) sought costs from Lalit Modi (Defendant) following a High Court case where the Claimant won on a debt claim but lost on a deceit claim.
- •The Defendant's costs included fees for Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, an Indian lawyer who assisted with the case.
- •The Claimants disputed Mr. Hora's fees, arguing inadequate breakdown and potentially fictitious work, alleging misconduct under CPR 44.11(1)(b).
- •Mr. Hora's fee notes were estimates based on memory and later reconstructed from emails and diary records, not contemporaneous time records.
- •The Claimants sought cross-examination of Mr. Hora, but the issue became moot after the Defendant conceded Mr. Hora's fees.
Legal Principles
CPR 44.11(1)(b) allows the court to make an order if a party's or their legal representative's conduct was unreasonable or improper.
CPR 44.11(1)(b)
To establish misconduct under CPR 44.11, the conduct must be unreasonable or improper, lacking reasonable explanation or being contrary to professional consensus. Mere mistake, error of judgment, or negligence is insufficient. The burden of proof lies on the applicant.
Gempride Ltd v Bamrah [2018] EWCA Civ 1367
A legal representative is responsible for the conduct of anyone to whom they subcontract work. A party is not normally responsible for their professional advisors unless there is subcontracting.
Gempride Ltd v Bamrah [2018] EWCA Civ 1367
Outcomes
The court found no unreasonable or improper conduct by the Defendant or his solicitors under CPR 44.11.
While Mr. Hora's fee breakdown was inaccurate and lacked contemporaneous records, it stemmed from a cultural difference in time recording and was not intended to mislead. The Defendant and his solicitors were unaware of the inaccuracies and were not responsible for Mr. Hora's actions as he was directly retained by the Defendant, not subcontracted.