The Cultural Foundation (American School of Dubai) v Beazley Furlonge Ltd & Ors, Court of Appeal - Commercial Court, October 03, 2018, [2018] EWHC 2548 (Comm)

Resolution Date:October 03, 2018
Issuing Organization:Commercial Court
Actores:The Cultural Foundation (American School of Dubai) v Beazley Furlonge Ltd & Ors

Case No: CL-2016-000727

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 2548 (Comm)




Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building

Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL

Date: 03/10/2018

Before :


(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

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

Between :

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

James Brocklebank QC and Henry Moore (instructed by Covington & Burling LLP) for the First Claimant

Andrew Neish QC (instructed by Allen & Overy LLP) for the Second Claimant

Tom Weitzman QC and Richard Coplin (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP) for the First Defendant

Peter Macdonald Eggers QC and Marcus Mander (instructed by Clyde & Co LLP) for the Third to Sixth Defendants

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

Judgment MR ANDREW HENSHAW QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Andrew Henshaw QC:


  1. This judgment deals with further matters of costs arising in this case. On 8 May 2018 I handed down judgment following a trial of ten preliminary issues ([2018] EWHC 1083 (Comm)). The hearing of matters consequential upon that judgment took place on 12 July 2018, being the earliest date on which it was possible to convene a hearing that all four parties could attend. I dealt on that occasion with two applications for permission to appeal, and gave directions for the next stages of the action. The parties also made detailed submissions on the somewhat complex costs issues which arose, on which I subsequently handed down a judgment ([2018] EWHC 2185 (Comm)). Those previous judgments set out the background to the case.

  2. The parties were not able to reach agreement about the costs relating to the 12 July 2018 hearing, and proposed that they be dealt with based on written submissions pursuant to an agreed timetable.

  3. Altogether the parties served more than 50 pages of written submissions. However, because the subject-matter is merely the costs of and relating to a one-day hearing of consequential matters, I do not consider that it would be proportionate to address here each and every point made. I have had careful regard to all the points made in the submissions, and set out below my reasoning on the key points in contention and my conclusions.


  4. Having considered the rival submissions on these matters, I have concluded that I should follow the following approach when determining the incidence of costs in relation to the hearing on 12 July 2018 and the associated preparatory work.

  5. First, and generally, I have regard to the applicable general principles set out in §§ 28-33 of my costs judgment dated 15 August 2018, derived from CPR 44.2 and the relevant case law and White Book notes.

  6. Secondly, the costs of the part of the hearing on 12 July 2018 relating to directions for the future conduct of the case (including the associated preparatory work) should in my view be costs in the case, rather than being allocated in accordance with the outcome of the preliminary issues trial. These costs relate to the litigation as a whole rather than specifically to the preliminary issues, and should ultimately be allocated accordingly.

  7. Thirdly, I consider that there should be no order as to costs as regards the unsuccessful...

To continue reading