BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Accentuate Ltd v Asigra Inc [2013] EWHC 889 (QB) (18 April 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/889.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 889 (QB) |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
(sitting with Master Gordon-Saker and Mr Colin Jaque)
____________________
ACCENTUATE LIMITED |
Appellant/ Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
ASIGRA INC |
Respondent/ Defendant |
____________________
Robert Marven (instructed by RPC) for the Respondent Defendant
Hearing dates: 15 April 2013
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Tugendhat :
"The Claimant's costs of and occasioned by this appeal and by the Defendant's application and hearing below shall be paid by the Defendant to the Claimant, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed".
THE ISSUES ON THIS APPEAL
i) Proportionality – Mr Wise submits that the Master was wrong to hold that the Defendant's costs were not disproportionate.
ii) The hourly rates allowed for the Defendant's solicitors.
iii) The disallowance of the Claimant's costs incurred before the application made in February 2009.
THE PROPER APPROACH TO AN APPEAL
PROPORTIONALITY OF D'S BILL
"31. In other words what is required is a two-stage approach. There has to be a global approach and an item by item approach. The global approach will indicate whether the total sum claimed is or appears to be disproportionate having particular regard to the considerations which Part 44.5(3) states are relevant. If the costs as a whole are not disproportionate according to that test then all that is normally required is that each item should have been reasonably incurred and the cost for that item should be reasonable. If on the other hand the costs as a whole appear disproportionate then the court will want to be satisfied that the work in relation to each item was necessary and, if necessary, that the cost of the item is reasonable. If, because of lack of planning or due to other causes, the global costs are disproportionately high, then the requirement that the costs should be proportionate means that no more should be payable than would have been payable if the litigation had been conducted in a proportionate manner. This in turn means that reasonable costs will only be recovered for the items which were necessary if the litigation had been conducted in a proportionate manner….
36. Based on their experience costs judges will be well equipped to assess which approach a particular case requires. In a case where proportionality is likely to be an issue, a preliminary judgment as to the proportionality of the costs as a whole must be made at the outset. This will ensure that the Costs Judge applies the correct approach to the detailed assessment. In considering that question the costs judge will have regard to whether the appropriate level of fee earner or counsel has been deployed, whether offers to settle have been made, whether unnecessary experts had been instructed and the other matters set out in Part 44.5(3). Once a decision is reached as to proportionality of costs as a whole, the judge will be able to proceed to consider the costs, item by item, applying the appropriate test to each item."
THE DEFENDANT'S SOLICITORS' HOURLY RATES
2009 | 2010 | 2010 | 2010 | 2010 | 2010 | 2010 | 2010 | |
A | B | C | D | A | B | C | D | |
City of London | 402 | 291 | 222 | 136 | 409 | 296 | 226 | 138 |
Central London | 312 | 238 | 193 | 124 | 317 | 242 | 196 | 126 |
Guildford | 213 | 189 | 158 | 116 | 217 | 192 | 161 | 118 |
THE CLAIMANT'S PRE- APPLICATION COSTS
i) £5,800 for counsel's fees incurred in and between June 2007 and January 2009;
ii) £5,423.48 solicitors' fees for the period before February 2009;
iii) £10,000 for the expert who provided the valuation of the company obtained in 2007 referred to above.