Intergraph (UK) Ltd and Another v Wolfson Microelectronics Plc
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 April 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 1862 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC11C02099 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 02 April 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 1862 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Rolls Building,
110 Fetter Lane,
London EC4 1NL
Mr R Snowden QC
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)
Case No: HC11C02099
MISS C SHEA (instructed by Olswang) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
MR T JEFFRIES (instructed by Boyes Turner) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
Monday, 2 April 2012
THE JUDGE:
On 13 March I handed down judgment in this matter, [2012] EWHC 528 (Ch), finding for the claimant to the effect that the lease in question had not been validly determined. Those who have read the judgment will know that this was a one-day hearing on a question of interpretation of a clause in a settlement agreement entered into between the parties, and there had been no live oral evidence. I now have to summarily assess the costs of these proceedings.
In that regard, Mr Jeffries, who appeared for the defendant, referred me to the commentary in the White Book to CPR 44.4(2) and submitted that the bill of costs which has been submitted by the claimant which totalled, exclusive of VAT, something in the region of £74,000-odd (including disbursements), was plainly excessive for what was essentially a short dispute on construction. He argued that, accordingly, I ought to adopt the approach set out in paragraph 44.4.2 of the White Book and scrutinise both the necessity and the reasonableness of the costs that are claimed with some care. I accept the submission by Mr Jeffries that the bill of costs presented by the claimant, certainly at first glance, appears disproportionate to the limited dispute which took place before me and that, accordingly, I should look carefully at the bill of costs. One does need to adopt a proportionate approach to litigation, and that is particularly so when it can be remembered that what was, in essence, at issue in this case, is whether the lease had been terminated or was set to continue for what is probably going to be another two years at an annual rent of something like £50,000 a year until the next break, at which it might well be supposed that the defendant will again seek to exercise the break clause.
Turning to the bill of costs that has been put in, I first address the question of charging rates. The claimant has deployed during this litigation a partner from the London office of its solicitors Olswang, together with an assistant solicitor from the Reading office and a variety of trainees. The hourly rates claimed for the partner range between £440 and £460, for the assistant solicitor between £285 and £330, and for the trainee solicitors and others between £140 and £175. Against that, Mr Jeffries draws my attention to the guideline charging rates which are set out in the White Book. Those rates are significantly below what has been sought. They are, however, only guideline rates and, as the notes to the tables indicate, they are broad approximations and are capable of being departed from, especially where it is apparent that the rates which are actually being paid to solicitors in the area may in fact be above the guideline rates. The note, for example, says that "In any particular case the hourly rate it is reasonable to allow should be determined by reference to the rates charged by comparable firms." In that regard, I do note that the defendant's solicitor, who is a partner in a Reading firm, was himself charging at above the guideline rate for that area, which indicates that some modest uplift on the guideline rates may be appropriate. That said, I accept that this was not substantial and complex litigation involving, for example, urgency or an international element, or indeed any factual witnesses giving live evidence, which might have justified a significant uplift on the guideline rates.
Taking those factors into account, it seems to me that the appropriate rates that I should apply to this bill of costs should be £350 per hour for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial