England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> Cantor Fitzgerald v Tradition (UK) Ltd [2003] EWHC 9040 (Costs) (31 July 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2003/9040.html
Cite as: [2003] EWHC 9040 (Costs)

---

[New search] [Help]

---

This summary of a judgment has been obtained from the Supreme Court Costs Office pages on the HM Courts Service web site. The citation used by BAILII is not an officially approved citation. The full text of the judgment may have an official Neutral Citation issued by the court, and may be available elsewhere on BAILII.

 

 



No.20 of 2003

---

Cantor Fitzgerald v Tradition (UK) Ltd
31 July 2003
Mr Justice Patten (Sitting With Assessors)

This was an interlocutory appeal from the Costs Judge in a case which is factually complex and turns on the proper interpretation of an order of the Court of Appeal which had allowed in part a costs appeal from a trial Judge.

The relevant part of the order which had to be construed read:

“1. That the appeal numbered A3/1999/1912 be allowed and that the order of the Honourable Mr Justice Pumfrey dated 28 June 1999 be varied as follows:

(a) That the claimants pay the First, Second and Fourth Defendants’ costs of and occasioned by the claim in respect of the “back office” system on and after 4 July 1997 and that the claimants do have their costs before that date.

(b) That the First, Second and Fourth Defendants pay the claimants’ costs up to and including the 22 August 1998.

(c) That the Claimants pay the First, Second and Fourth Defendants’ costs of the trial commencing on 6 October 1998.

All such costs to be the subject of a detailed assessment if not agreed.

AND IT IS ORDERED

1. That there be no order as to costs for the period of 23 August 1998 to the start of trial.

2. That the Claimants’ costs of the appeal numbered A3/1999/1212 be paid by the First, Second and Fourth Defendants such costs to be the subject of a detailed assessment if not agreed.”

The issue which had to be resolved by the Judge on appeal was whether, in the light of that wording, the claimants were liable to pay the First, Second and Fourth Defendants brief fees before the trial started on 6 October.  

It was common ground that the fees in question had actually been paid in three tranches well before 6 October.

The Costs Judge had held that in order to be able to present the case properly counsel had to prepare fully and the brief fee included not merely his first five hours in court but also the preparation therefor, so the brief fees were recoverable.

After a very careful analysis both the actual wording of the order of the Court of Appeal, the judgment of the court which led to that order and the wording and order made by Mr Justice Pumfrey below, the Judge held that the Costs Judge was wrong and that the brief fees fell into the period covered by the period between 23 August 1998 and the start of the trial in respect of which the Court of Appeal ordered that there should be no order as to costs.