Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • London
Stuart Cullen
Stuart Cullen
  • Stuart Cullen

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

We won - how much do we get in costs?

Justice Jack of the Commercial Division of the High Court set aside a statutory demand and following submissions on costs by the parties, rendered its judgment applying the principles of CPR 64.6.

CPR 64.6 enshrines, along with some discretionary exceptions for deviation, the general principle that an unsuccessful party ought to pay the costs of the successful party.

The Applicant argued that the general rule should not apply as there was no general interest in serving the statutory demand and the Respondent lost on two of its defences. The Court rejected both arguments for deviating from the general rule but acknowledged that, if relevant, the Court will consider the extent to which costs have been increased by arguments on the losing point.

Having determined that the Applicant was required to pay all the Respondent’s costs, the Court then examined the relevant principles for determining the quantum. The court rejected the argument that it should first refrain from taking a line by line approach to assessment and instead take a “broad brush” approach to reduce the overall amount claimed to 75 per cent.

The Court held that the correct approach was to first determine whether the costs claimed are proportionate. If deemed proportionate a “broad brush” approach to reduce costs was not correct. Instead, the Court would examine individual disputed items and make the appropriate deductions. Examining the individual complaints against the successful party, the Court discounted costs incurred by a senior associate that could have been incurred by a junior associate and disallowed costs incurred for research carried out after the hearing of the claim. The total amount discounted from the costs claimed was only US$381.25.

On the costs of the cost assessment, the Respondent was also to be awarded its costs to be determined on paper. The Respondent had the benefit of a without prejudice save as to costs letter that was not defeated by the Applicant.

This “proportionate” amount to assessing quantum is good news for a successful party who has put forward his reasonable costs. He can expect substantial recovery rather than a broad-brush discount approach.

See a copy of the judgment here.  

We won - how much do we get in costs?

Leave A Comment