Prashant Hasmukh Manek v 360 One Wam Ltd (formerly known as IIFL Wealth Management Ltd)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Simon Rainey |
| Judgment Date | 28 April 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 985 (Comm) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CL-2022-000075 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
[2023] EWHC 985 (Comm)
Simon Rainey K.C. (sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Case No: CL-2022-000075
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
COMMERCIAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building,
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Rajesh Pillai K.C., William Day and Rishab Gupta (instructed by Howard Kennedy) for the Applicants / Defendants
Anna Dilnot K.C. and Joshua Crow (instructed by Cleary Gottlieb) for the Respondents / Claimants
Hearing dates: 17 th March 2023
(CONSEQUENTIALS)
This judgment was handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to The National Archives. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 11:00 on Friday 28 th April 2023
Simon Rainey KC:
This judgment addresses consequential matters arising out of my Judgment dated 30 th March 2023, [2023] EWHC 710 (Comm), by which I dismissed the Defendants' application to set aside the order of Foxton J dated 7 June 2022 granting ex parte permission to the Claimants to serve the New Proceedings on the Defendants out of the jurisdiction.
I refer to that Judgment and adopt the same abbreviations etc. I also refer to the Court's Order dated 30 th March 2023.
Costs
The Claimants seek (a) costs of the application and of the hearing in the sum of £195,107.00 (excluding VAT), together with (b) additional costs of £14,137.50 (excluding VAT) in respect of dealing with post-judgment and consequential submissions.
No submissions have been made as to (b), and these costs are in my view proportionate and reasonable and I summarily assess them in the sum claimed plus VAT.
As to (a), the Defendants contend that the level of costs sought is excessive and should be reduced to about 60% of the figure claimed, i.e. to some £125,000 (inclusive of VAT).
Standing back, the Defendants' application, while disposed of in a one day hearing due to the economic and efficient way in which it was argued by both Counsel, nevertheless raised a large of number of issues and gave rise to a very extensive body of supporting documentation, both in the form of witness statements and exhibits. I note that the Defendants' costs were £651,027.98 (exclusive of VAT), with solicitor hours charged at £349,995.00 of which £178,041.00 was work on documents. Just balancing the respective costs levels and while of course taking account of the fact that, as the applicant, the Defendants would have carried a larger proportion of the work in formulating the application, its grounds and supporting materials, than the Claimants as respondent, there is no obvious or glaring disparity in costs levels which would suggest that the Claimants' costs are per se unreasonable or disproportionate.
Against that background, the Defendants make two points.
First, it is submitted that the hours spent by the Claimants' solicitors Cleary Gottlieb are excessive for a one-day jurisdiction challenge. I dismiss this submission.
The main individual criticisms relied upon are, first, that a total of 50 hours were spent on the preparation of the second witness statement of Mr Gadhia. Given that this was the principal response statement of the Claimants and dealt in detail with the various factual matters relied on by the Defendants and itself was 30 pages in length and marshalled over 500 pages of exhibits, this criticism lacks reality. I note that of the 50 hours, 35.75 hours were incurred by a Grade C fee earner and only 9.25 hours by the Grade A fee earner. This seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable and proportionate number of hours. Secondly, a total of 17 hours is complained of as having been spent (15.25, Grade C; 2.5 Grade A) on the first witness statement of Mr Manek. Again, when I consider what that statement covered and, additionally, when I compare equivalent times for witness statements prepared by the Defendants, this seems both reasonable and efficient.
Lesser criticisms are that 7.25 hours was spent by Cleary Gottlieb on the Skeleton Argument. While this would be the principal burden of Counsel, it is unrealistic to consider on an application of this kind that solicitors would not also be heavily involved in the review of the Skeleton and its drafts; cf. the Defendants with their comparable time of 4.8 hours. Lastly, reliance is placed on 8.5 hours having been spent in generic “hearing preparation”. Given the volume of material and the large number of issues that figure is unsurprising.
Secondly, objection is taken to the hourly rates claimed for and as charged by Cleary Gottlieb on the basis that these are far in excess of the Guideline Rates for Grades A, C and D fee earners (with the first two being 88% and 117% higher respectively). This submission has force.
The Court of Appeal has stressed in a number of recent decisions 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: see e.g. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v LG Display Co Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 466 and Athena Capital Fund SICAV-FIS SCA v Secretariat of State for the Holy See ( Costs) [2022] EWCA Civ 1061. The sorts of justifications which might apply are set out in PD44SC, para. 29.
The justification put forward by the Claimants is that the case is complex and that the litigation is substantial and of high value, involving an alleged international fraud (Consequentials Skeleton No. 1, para. 5(3)(b)) and that the overall level of costs (dealt with by me above) shows that the Claimants conducted the litigation economically and efficiently in terms of partner time when compared with the Defendants (ibid., para.. 5(3)(c) and Consequentials Skeleton No. 2, para. 2).
The latter point goes to numbers of hours claimed and does not address nor could it justify claiming rates substantially in excess of the Guideline Rates.
The other points relied upon in justification of the rates are, with respect, generic and could be made equally in many other jurisdiction challenges involving fraud, and involving much higher claim values.
I bear in mind that the updated Guideline Rates are meant to reflect heavy and complex Commercial Court and Chancery Division litigation. As it was put by Birss LJ in Athena Capital (supra) at [10]:
“In my experience there has been a view that the previous set of Guideline Hourly Rates (before 2021) were not directed to the heaviest work such as takes place in the Business and Property Courts. In part no doubt this was because they were so out of date. Whatever the position was or was thought to be, it changed in the current set of Guideline Hourly Rates, which were approved by the Master of the Rolls in August 2021. As my Lord...
To continue reading
Request your trial