7 Rolls Buildings
London EC4A 1NL
B e f o r e :
| MUSION SYSTEMS LIMITED
|- and -
|(1) ACTIV8-3D LIMITED
(2) C2R LIMITED
(3) DAVID DUTTON
(4) SIMON DAVID HUMPHREYS
Simon Humphreys in Person and Paul Andrews, a director for Activ8-3D Limited
Crown Copyright ©
His Honour Judge Birss QC :
i) Timetable and trial arrangements. The time spent on this has clearly been wasted and the defendants did not dissent from that.
ii) Skeleton arguments. The claimant had to prepare a housekeeping skeleton which is now redundant. The defendants accept that part of that skeleton will need to be thrown away. In my judgment all those costs have been wasted. The claimant also says that a large proportion of its main skeleton for trial will now be redundant. The defendants disagree but in my judgment they are unrealistic in this. The adjourned trial will have significant new evidence in it on the Phantasialand issue. That is why it had to be adjourned. A substantial part of the claimant's case in their old trial skeleton now needs to be redone.
iii) Trial bundles. The bundles will need to be updated and some time spent preparing the bundles before has been wasted. The defendants do not accept the bundles will be thrown away. They are right but that is not the point the claimant makes.
iv) Witness statements. The claimant's solicitors had to work hard shortly before trial to prepare additional witness statements at short notice dealing with the very late disclosure from the defendants in attempting to hold onto the trial date. That work has been made redundant by the adjournment since further evidence will be needed to address the new material properly. The defendants do not agree. They argue that all the evidence will still be appropriate. It seems to me that that misses the point. The claimant is not claiming all the evidence costs. The claimant had to prepare two statements dealing with the partly redacted version of the document which has now been provided in unredacted form. The cost of that work is a cost thrown away.
v) Trial attendance and preparation. The claimant claims various costs of attending to start the trial on 24th October. The defendants accept some of those costs have been wasted but they point out that a claim is made for a Dr Schubert – for whom the claimant did not have permission to give evidence. However the claimant was going to seek to have him admitted to deal with the late evidence and his evidence will now be admitted at the adjourned trial. It seems to me that his attendance in October was reasonable in the circumstances from the claimant's point of view and therefore those costs have been thrown away.
vi) Counsel's brief free. The claimant will have to incur new fees for counsel in respect of the new trial. That is undeniable. The defendants ask the court to assess this request. I will do so.