Deleclass Shipping Co Ltd & Anor v Ingosstrakh Insurance Company Ltd (Costs), Court of Appeal - Commercial Court, May 11, 2018, [2018] EWHC 1135 (Comm)

Resolution Date:May 11, 2018
Issuing Organization:Commercial Court
Actores:Deleclass Shipping Co Ltd & Anor v Ingosstrakh Insurance Company Ltd (Costs)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 1135 (Comm)

Case No: CL-2016-000508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

COMMERCIAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 11/05/2018

Before :

MR ANDREW HENSHAW QC

(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Draft 11 May 2018 11:17 Page 5

Mr Andrew Henshaw QC:

  1. Following a hearing on 2 March 2018, I gave judgment on 9 March 2018 dismissing the Claimants' and the Defendant's applications for security for costs.

  2. The parties subsequently asked me summarily to assess their respective costs of the applications, as they been unable to reach agreement. I have considered their costs schedules and written submissions, together with further responses/submissions received in email form following questions I had raised after reviewing the parties' written submissions.

  3. The Defendant's application gave rise to the greater part, by some margin, of the evidence and submissions. It was common ground that the basic conditions for an order for security were made out, but issues relating to the merits of the parties' claims, whether an order for security would stifle the Claimants' claims, and whether the Claimants' impecuniosity had been caused by the Defendant, were closely contested and involved significant amounts of evidence. The Claimants' application, though it could have given rise to considerable evidence, was in fact fought and determined essentially over a point of construction about the court's powers to grant security to a Claimant in the particular circumstances that had arisen. The relative length of the oral submissions before me (by far the greater part of which related to the Defendant's application) will not have been a fair reflection of the overall position. However, based on a review of the evidence and the skeleton arguments, it appears that something of the order of three-quarters of the work is likely to have arisen from the Defendant's application.

  4. The Claimants seek costs of £33,022.81 in respect of the Defendant's unsuccessful application. As a comparator they have provided a statement of their costs in respect of their own unsuccessful application in the sum of £10,326.50.

  5. The Claimants' method of allocation of work between the two applications, explained in a witness statement dated 23 March 2018 from...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL