Agrimex Ltd. v Tradigrain SA & Ors [2003] EWHC 1656 (Comm) (09 July 2003)

Agrimex Ltd. v Tradigrain SA & Ors [2003] EWHC 1656 (Comm) (09 July 2003)

The appointment of a legal draftsman was permissible in the special circumstances of this case, but the fee charged by the solicitor was grossly excessive and disproportionate to the nature and value of the dispute. The tribunal failed to scrutinise the fee or consider proportionality. The court exercised its power under s.28 Arbitration Act 1996 to reduce the fee to £5,000, as that amount was accepted as reasonable by the Claimant.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 1656 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: AGRIMEX LTD; First Defendant: TRADIGRAIN SA; Second Defendant: THE GRAIN AND FEED TRADE ASSOCIATION; Third Defendant: RAINER KARSTAEDT; Fourth Defendant: BRIAN R. GILES; Fifth Defendant: SUSAN HUNT; Sixth Defendant: GRAHAM CLARK; Seventh Defendant: BARRY M. J. DUGGAN
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Application to Adjust Arbitral Tribunal Fees
Outcome
Application granted in part; arbitral tribunal's legal drafting fee reduced.
Legal Topics
Arbitral Tribunal Fees, Proportionality of Costs, Appointment of Legal Draftsman, Section 28 Arbitration Act 1996, Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996, Section 37 Arbitration Act 1996
Arbitration Commercial Law Arbitral Tribunal Fees Proportionality of Costs Appointment of Legal Draftsman Section 28 Arbitration Act 1996 Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Section 37 Arbitration Act 1996

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AGRIMEX LTD

Claimant

TRADIGRAIN SA

First Defendant

THE GRAIN AND FEED TRADE ASSOCIATION

Second Defendant

RAINER KARSTAEDT

Third Defendant

BRIAN R. GILES

Fourth Defendant

SUSAN HUNT

Fifth Defendant

GRAHAM CLARK

Sixth Defendant

BARRY M. J. DUGGAN

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Application to Adjust Arbitral Tribunal Fees

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fees charged by the Board of Appeal of GAFTA for legal drafting were excessive and disproportionate under s.28(2) and (3) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of a legal draftsman was justified in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal's use of a solicitor for drafting the award was reasonable and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The appointment of a legal draftsman was permissible in the special circumstances of this case, but the fee charged by the solicitor was grossly excessive and disproportionate to the nature and value of the dispute. The tribunal failed to scrutinise the fee or consider proportionality. The court exercised its power under s.28 Arbitration Act 1996 to reduce the fee to £5,000, as that amount was accepted as reasonable by the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; arbitral tribunal's legal drafting fee reduced.

Orders

  • GAFTA to repay the excess of the legal drafting fee above £5,000 to the Claimant.
  • Claimant to pay the First Defendant's costs of the s.68 application, summarily assessed at £6,500.