QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE NICOL
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF HAIGH||Claimant|
|WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES' COURT||First Respondent|
|MR HISHAM AL RAYES|
|MR JINESH PATEL||First and SecondInterested Parties|
|ALUN JONES QC||Second Respondent|
WordWave International Limited
Trading as DTI
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr James Ramsden QC (instructed by Bryan Cave Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the First and Second Interested Parties
Mr Roger Stewart QC (instructed by Keystone Law) appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
a. There is enough to warrant the allegation of improper or unreasonable conduct. We express no conclusion as to how the matter will finally be resolved. That is simply a reflection of the stage one test, and we wish to be absolutely clear about that. There are or may be all sorts of arguments which could yet appear and which may persuade us to a different conclusion. All we are saying is that the stage one test, which is relatively informal, is satisfied.
b. We are equally satisfied with regard to the costs which flow from it that the interested parties satisfy the stage one test in respect of the instruction of Mr Fenwick QC.
c. We are satisfied in that regard as to the introduction of allegations of fraud, of which we regard the reference to the without prejudice material as forming part. We do not see any future for the allegation of introducing without prejudice materials as having some discrete or independent existence apart from the allegation that unfounded allegations of fraud were introduced.
d. We should make it plain that we take a different view of the other allegations of costs being increased. We have had several months for material to be produced. We have nothing more than the most generalised assertions. We do not accept that the stage one test is satisfied. To make it absolutely plain, stage two would be about the costs relating to the instruction of Mr Fenwick, not more generalised arguments about additional costs. The rather broad or generalised suggestions in that regard either seem to us to raise matters which will not carry significant financial weight and so would be disproportionate, or are altogether too general to now warrant yet more time before the matter is investigated by a costs draftsman, with yet further costs for all concerned. Stage two - Mr Fenwick will forgive me putting it that way - is about Fenwick, in terms of costs.