Eurocall Ltd v Energis Communications Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 2790 (QB) (04 November 2010)

Eurocall Ltd v Energis Communications Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 2790 (QB) (04 November 2010)

The costs incurred by the Claimant and Mr Warr were, in the main, reasonable and proportionate given the complexity and importance of the application and the sums at stake. There was no sufficient basis for indemnity costs; standard basis applies. Specific deductions were made for items not fully justified. Energis is to pay £47,805.50 in costs to Mr Warr within 14 days.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2790
Parties
Claimant: Eurocall Limited; First Defendant: Energis Communications Limited; Second Defendant: Nigel Dudley Warr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Application / Post Application, Summary Assessment of Costs
Outcome
Costs order for the Claimant and Second Defendant; application for indemnity costs refused; standard basis costs awarded with deductions.
Legal Topics
Costs, Champerty, Summary Assessment, Indemnity Costs, Standard Basis Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Champerty Summary Assessment Indemnity Costs Standard Basis Costs

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eurocall Limited

Claimant

Energis Communications Limited

First Defendant

Nigel Dudley Warr

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Application / Post Application, Summary Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate order for costs following the failure of the First Defendant's application to strike out the claim or for summary judgment on grounds of Champerty?
  2. 2 Should costs be assessed on the standard or indemnity basis?
  3. 3 What is the reasonable quantum of costs recoverable by the Claimant and Second Defendant?

Ratio Decidendi

The costs incurred by the Claimant and Mr Warr were, in the main, reasonable and proportionate given the complexity and importance of the application and the sums at stake. There was no sufficient basis for indemnity costs; standard basis applies. Specific deductions were made for items not fully justified. Energis is to pay £47,805.50 in costs to Mr Warr within 14 days.

Court Disposition

Costs order for the Claimant and Second Defendant; application for indemnity costs refused; standard basis costs awarded with deductions.

Orders

  • Energis Communications Limited to pay £47,805.50 to Mr Warr within 14 days of judgment.