England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		11/10/2010

Peter Smith J:

INTRODUCTION

1. This judgment is the assessment of the costs of the First Defendant which I ordered the Claimant to pay when I dismissed its application to commit he First Defendant to prison for failure to comply with the terms of a freezing order as to provision of information in an ex parte order made by Newey J on 5^th July 2010.
2. I ordered the costs to be summarily assessed and paid on a standard basis if not agreed.
3. If no agreement was reached I directed that the costs be assessed by me on the basis of written representations made by the parties.
4. No agreement was forthcoming. The First Defendant seeks £19,669.50 (inclusive of VAT). The Claimant has offered £8,000. The Claimants costs on that application were £5603.14 (including VAT).
5. There were other applications heard on the same time so the solicitors have had to separate out what would be global costs on a number of applications. That might explain the difference between the parties.
6. I will deal with the various objections.

HOURLY RATE

7. The hourly rate claimed by Mr Cohen a Grade A fee earner in the First Defendant's firm of Solicitors (Jeffrey Green Russell) is £450 plus vat. This is justified on the basis that Registrar Baister has apparently made an order in his favour in a similar amount in unrelated proceedings. The guideline figure is £317 plus vat.
8. The guideline is just that a guideline and the figure apparently ordered by Master Baister in a different case does not assist me. However given the nature of the application and the urgency a figure higher than the guideline figure is justified. Given those circumstances I would asses the hourly rate at £ 400 plus vat.

HOURS DONE

9. The total hours done on documents and evidence by Mr Cohen is 22.4 hours. In addition he claims 6 hours for attending court (that is not challenged).
10. It is suggested that is excessive and 8 hours is appropriate. [ cannot see that the hours claimed are reasonable. There were aspects of the retainer that were being done and I cannot see dealing with the committal of itself can have taken nearly half a week, In my view I would allow 13 hours plus the court attendance at the above rate. Some of the affidavit clearly went towards the compliance requirement.
11. I disregard the lateness of the filing of the affidavit. I do not see that is relevant. Equally the fact that the First Defendant had not complied was irrelevant; the committal application was dismissed because of the irregularity of the application and the misleading evidence.

NO INDEMNITY

12. I do not recall the statement that the First Defendant's solicitors were going to pay. It is denied by them and I cannot resolve this issue. I will therefore disregard it

COUNSEL'S FEES

13. Counsel's fees are £3,500 (corrected following the fee note) in the sum of £3,000 plus vat. It is submitted that is excessive for a 45 minute hearing.
14. The shortness of the hearing is one factor. The nature of the hearing is another. The time for preparation is another as the time (in the vacation) that can be spent waiting. This was an application for committal. The First Defendant faced the prospect of being sent to prison. He was therefore entitled to employ an experienced Counsel such as Mr Warwick. Given all of those factors I consider the original suggested fee of £3,000 is reasonable and justified.

VAT

15. It was suggested that the First Defendant was registered for VAT. His solicitors have confirmed he was not so this point does not arise.

CONCLUSION

16. I therefore reduce the hourly to £400 plus vat, reduce the preparation hours to 13 and Counsel's fees to £3,000 plus vat. Other than that I confirm the rest of the costs claimed. Will the parties now agree a recalculated amount in the light of this determination?