Samsung Electronics Company Ltd v LG Display Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Males,Lord Justice Snowden,Lord Justice Lewison |
| Judgment Date | 06 April 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWCA Civ 466 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CA-2021-000656 (formerly A4/2021/1107) |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[2022] EWCA Civ 466
Lord Justice Lewison
Lord Justice Males
and
Lord Justice Snowden
Case No: CA-2021-000656 (formerly A4/2021/1107)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Sir Michael Burton GBE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Robert O'Donoghue QC & Tom Pascoe (instructed by Covington & Burling LLP) for the Appellants/Claimants
Daniel Piccinin (instructed by Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP) for the Respondents/Defendants
Written submissions
Approved Judgment (Costs)
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30 a.m. on 6 th April 2022 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by email and by release to BAILII and the National Archives.
I am giving this brief judgment to deal with an issue concerning the costs of the appeal.
It is common ground that the successful respondent, LG, should have its costs of the appeal and that these should be summarily assessed on the standard basis. LG has submitted a schedule claiming costs of £72,818.21. These include the costs of its solicitors, who bill in United States dollars, claiming costs at a rate of between US $1,045 and US $1,475.75 per hour for Grade A fee earners and between US $578 and US $918 for Grade C fee earners. At the conversion rate used, these are equivalent to charges between £801.40 and £1,131.75 for Grade A and between £443.27 and £704 for Grade C.
As the appellant, Samsung, points out, these are well above the guideline hourly rates set out in Appendix 2 to the “Summary Assessment of Costs” guide published in the White Book. Those guideline rates for London 1, which applies to “very heavy commercial and corporate work by centrally based London firms”, are £512 for Grade A (solicitors and legal executives with over eight years' experience) and £270 for Grade C (solicitors and legal executives with less than four years' experience and other fee earners of equivalent experience). In some cases, therefore, the rates claimed are more than double the guideline rates.
The guide recognises that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Allseas Group SA) v Paul Sultana
...Ors [2020] EWHC 3278 (Ch); R (on the application of TM Eye Ltd) v Southampton Crown Court [2021] EWHC 2624 (Admin); Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v LG Display Co Ltd (Costs) [2022] EWCA Civ 54 If only for the sake of relative brevity, I will refer only to those judgments that I believe to b......
-
Patley Wood Farm LLP v Kristina Kicks
...guideline figures. Of course they are guidelines, and are not set in stone. But, as the Court of Appeal 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 1......
-
Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd
...justification, Ms Reffin relied upon the words of Males LJ in the case of Samsung Electronics Co 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 1......
-
Prashant Hasmukh Manek v 360 One Wam Ltd (formerly known as IIFL Wealth Management Ltd)
...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 Ci......