Deutsche Bank AG v Vik [2021] EWHC B10 (Costs) (18 June 2021)

Deutsche Bank AG v Vik [2021] EWHC B10 (Costs) (18 June 2021)

The court held that while the complexity and value of the case justified significant expert input and some delegation to junior fee earners, the total time spent by Navigant was excessive and unreasonable in several respects, particularly due to 'burnishing' and multiple fee earners revising work. Reductions were made across most invoices to reflect what was reasonable and proportionate, with the Claimant receiving the benefit of doubt where precise allocation was unclear. The hourly rates were not challenged in principle and were found reasonable. Costs for work on Initial Margin and US proceedings were disallowed or reduced as conceded.

Citation
[2021] EWHC B10 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Deutsche Bank AG; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Sebastian Holdings, Inc.; Defendant for Costs Purposes Only: Mr Alexander Vik
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Detailed Assessment of Expert Fees
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Assessment of Expert Fees, Reasonableness of Costs, Delegation of Expert Work, Proportionality in Costs, Indemnity Basis Assessment
Civil Procedure Costs Assessment of Expert Fees Reasonableness of Costs Delegation of Expert Work Proportionality in Costs Indemnity Basis Assessment

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deutsche Bank AG

Claimant

Sebastian Holdings, Inc.

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Mr Alexander Vik

Defendant for Costs Purposes Only

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Detailed Assessment of Expert Fees

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the reasonable and proportionate amount recoverable for Navigant Consulting Inc.'s expert fees?
  2. 2 Was the delegation of work to junior fee earners reasonable?
  3. 3 Should reductions be made for excessive time spent and 'burnishing'?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the complexity and value of the case justified significant expert input and some delegation to junior fee earners, the total time spent by Navigant was excessive and unreasonable in several respects, particularly due to 'burnishing' and multiple fee earners revising work. Reductions were made across most invoices to reflect what was reasonable and proportionate, with the Claimant receiving the benefit of doubt where precise allocation was unclear. The hourly rates were not challenged in principle and were found reasonable. Costs for work on Initial Margin and US proceedings were disallowed or reduced as conceded.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • The total sum allowed for Navigant's fees is £2,297,064.55 excluding VAT, as set out in the judgment table.
  • Reductions applied to most invoices for excessive time and work on Initial Margin and US proceedings disallowed or reduced as conceded.