Aereal Bank AG v Lumineau & Anor [2025] EWHC 3299 (SCCO) (08 September 2025)

Aereal Bank AG v Lumineau & Anor [2025] EWHC 3299 (SCCO) (08 September 2025)

Given the unusual complexity and importance of the case, a modest departure above guideline rates is justified, but not to the full extent claimed. Instruction of leading counsel was reasonable initially due to prior involvement and expertise, but not for the entire duration at leading counsel rates. Points of dispute were generic and failed to comply fully with Practice Direction 47, but the court exercised discretion to assess individual items for reasonableness and proportionality.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3299 (SCCO)
Parties
Claimant: Aareal Bank AG; First Defendant: Emmanuel Lumineau; Second Defendant: Thomas Schneider
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Detailed Assessment of Costs / Judgment on Hourly Rates and Counsel's Fees
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Assessment of Costs, Guideline Hourly Rates, Instruction of Counsel, Proportionality, Practice Direction 47, Points of Dispute
Civil Procedure Costs Assessment of Costs Guideline Hourly Rates Instruction of Counsel Proportionality Practice Direction 47 Points of Dispute

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aareal Bank AG

Claimant

Emmanuel Lumineau

First Defendant

Thomas Schneider

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Detailed Assessment of Costs / Judgment on Hourly Rates and Counsel's Fees

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether hourly rates above SCCO guidelines are justified
  2. 2 Whether instruction of leading counsel was reasonable and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether points of dispute complied with Practice Direction 47, paragraph 8.2

Ratio Decidendi

Given the unusual complexity and importance of the case, a modest departure above guideline rates is justified, but not to the full extent claimed. Instruction of leading counsel was reasonable initially due to prior involvement and expertise, but not for the entire duration at leading counsel rates. Points of dispute were generic and failed to comply fully with Practice Direction 47, but the court exercised discretion to assess individual items for reasonableness and proportionality.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • Partner's hourly rate reduced from £433.50 to £410.
  • Legal director's rate allowed as claimed.