Athena Capital Fund Sicav-Fis S.C.A. v Secretariat of State for the Holy See
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Males,Lord Justice Birss,Lord Justice Peter Jackson |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWCA Civ 1061 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CA-2021-003257, CA-2021-003257-A |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Lord Justice Peter Jackson
Lord Justice Males
and
Lord Justice Birss
Case No: CA-2021-003257, CA-2021-003257-A
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
COMMERCIAL COURT (QBD)
Simon Salzedo QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Charles Samek QC & Tetyana Nesterchuk (instructed by Withers LLP) for the Appellants
Charles Hollander QC, Samar Abbas Kazmi & James Bradford (instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) for the Respondent
Written submissions
Approved Judgment
(COSTS)
Remote hand-down: This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 26 July 2022 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
We are today allowing an appeal in which we hold that the judge, Simon Salzedo QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, was wrong to impose a case management stay of these proceedings. Although there are six grounds of appeal, only one of which proved decisive, I would not make a split order for costs as requested by the respondents. The successful appellants are therefore entitled to their costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.
We are invited to make an order for a payment on account. This judgment deals with that issue.
The hearing before the judge took place over two days, but included numerous issues which formed no part of the appeal. The hearing of the appeal was listed for one and a half days but, in the event, was concluded in one day.
It therefore came as something of a surprise that according to the statements of costs filed by the parties, the total costs of the appeal amounted to over £730,000. The appellants' costs amounted to some £380,000, while the respondent's costs amounted to some £350,000, including some £30,000 in translation fees.
Breaking these costs down, and in round figures, the appellants' solicitors' costs comprised £175,000 (including hourly rates charged well in excess of the guideline rates set out in Appendix 2 to the “Summary Assessment of Costs” guide published in the White Book), while the fees of leading and junior counsel exceeded £200,000. The respondent's solicitors' costs were £100,000, while counsel's fees (leading and two junior counsel) were £215,000.
This court has recently held that, in the case of solicitors' fees, if a rate in excess of the guideline rate is to be charged to the paying party, a clear and compelling justification must be provided: Samsung...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
H v GH
...something about these factors in the case in question which justifies exceeding the guideline rate.” 49 In Athena Capital Fund SICAV-FIS S.C.A. v Secretariat of State for the Holy See [2022] EWCA Civ 1061, [2022] Costs LR 1119, Males LJ (with whom Birss and Peter Jackson LJJ agreed) held: ......
-
Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd
...Ltd & Ors v LG Display Co Ltd & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 466 and again (together with Birss LJ) in Athena Capital Fund SICAV-FIS SCA & Ors v Secretariat of State for the Holy See [2022] EWCA Civ 1061. In the latter case Males LJ said the following at paragraph 6: “This court has recently held t......
-
Chedington Events Ltd v Nihal Mohamed Brake
...lies on the receiving party: Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v LG Display Co Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 466; Athena Capital Services SICAV v Secretariat of State for the Holy See [2022] EWCA Civ 1061. The submissions on each side make much and little respectively of the legal work needed for the claima......
-
Patley Wood Farm LLP v Kristina Kicks
...said recently in Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v LG Display Co Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 466, and again in Athena Capital Services SICAV v Secretariat of State for the Holy See [2022] EWCA Civ 1061, if a rate in excess of the guideline rate for solicitors' fees is to be charged to the paying party, ......