|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions >> Tchenguiz & Anor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office  EWHC 1103 (Comm) (11 April 2014)
Cite as:  EWHC 1103 (Comm)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
B e f o r e :
| ROBERT TCHENGUIZ
|- and -
DIRECTOR OF THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE
MR JAMES EADIE QC, MR SIMON COLTON, MR JAMES SEGAN and MS PATRICIA BURNS (instructed by Slaughter and May) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Hearing dates: 7 & 8 April 2014
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Eder:
i) First, the total quantum of R20's claims as set out in its pleadings is only about £1.5 million and that the amount of security sought (i.e. £6.25m) is therefore "disproportionate".
ii) Second, the suggestion that it could be appropriate to order security for costs of £6.25m to permit a claimant to continue to advance a claim of £1.5m is absurd – rather the question should then be on what basis the defendant contends that it will reasonably incur costs of that level to defend that particular claim. If R20's claim were brought on its own, the SFO's costs would obviously not be anywhere near £6.5 million. The Court would no doubt use its budgeting and other case management techniques to ensure that the costs incurred were proportionate. R20's claims are narrow in scope – unlike the claims advanced by the other claimants, the only cause of action relied upon is trespass; the heads of loss are discrete and will not require extensive evidence (or any expert evidence).
iii) Third, assuming that all claimants (except R20) succeeded in their claims, the SFO would obviously not be entitled to recover £6.5m from R20.
"17. For the above reasons, the SFO believes that the only appropriate approach is to (a) apportion 50% of the total costs to date to the RT Actions, and (b) then approach the costs of the RT Actions on a joint and several basis between RT and R20. This is because it is impossible to attribute costs to either of the RT Claimants solely so to do otherwise would ignore the reality of the conduct of this litigation to date. This is save for the expert costs, in relation to which, out of the £190,000 estimated to relate to the RT Claimants (see paragraph 11(d) above), the experts estimate that £38,000 is attributable to R20 alone.
18. Applying this approach to the costs in the Schedule …:
(a) Costs to end February 2014 are £8.130m.
(b) Given the de minimis amount of expert costs attributable to R20 alone (£38,000), for present purposes I have excluded the entirety of the expert costs (£0.501m), giving £7.629m.
(c) I have then deducted the costs received to date (£59,286.75) as set out in Part 3 of the Costs Schedule. This gives a total of £7.569m as between both the RT and VT Claimants.
(d) Of this, 50% is attributable to the RT Claimants. This gives a figure of £3.785m.
(e) If 65% is awarded by way of security, this gives a figure of £2.460m, which with VAT at 20% gives a total of £2.952m, which the SFO believes is properly attributable to the RT Claimants on a joint and several basis for the reasons set out above.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Costs Schedule is not a complete analysis of the SFO's past costs, since some additional costs have been incurred by the SFO directly and, therefore, have not been reflected in my firm's bills. The SFO does not seek security in relation to those costs, but reserves all its rights to recover in relation to them at the appropriate time."