Voltaire Capital Holdings Ltd & Ors v Watson & Ors [2025] EWHC 1948 (Comm) (28 July 2025)

Voltaire Capital Holdings Ltd & Ors v Watson & Ors [2025] EWHC 1948 (Comm) (28 July 2025)

Given the contested and substantial nature of the disclosure guidance hearing, the Claimants' overall success, and the disproportionate approach of the Second Defendant, it is appropriate to depart from the default costs position and order the Second Defendant to pay the Claimants' costs, subject to a 10% reduction for the Second Defendant's limited success.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1948 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Voltaire Capital Holdings Limited; Claimant/respondent: Gemini Investment Holding Limited; Claimant/respondent: Marchmont Limited; Claimant/respondent: March CP Limited; Claimant/respondent: OS Capital Holding Ltd; Defendant/applicant: Eric Watson; Defendant/applicant: Krishan Rattan; Defendant/applicant: Miles Leahy; Defendant/applicant: Startrader Pro Limited; Defendant/applicant: SBL Holdings Limited; Defendant/applicant: Tim Connell; Defendant/applicant: William Gibson; Defendant/applicant: Shamyl Malik; Defendant/applicant: Ramy Soliman; Defendant/applicant: Sam Watson; Defendant/applicant: Notesco Financial Services Limited; Defendant/applicant: Notesco UK Limited; Defendant/applicant: Daniel Fields; Defendant/applicant: Green Fields Management LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Litigation / Costs Determination Following Disclosure Guidance Application
Outcome
Second Defendant ordered to pay Claimants' costs of the Disclosure Guidance Application, summarily assessed.
Legal Topics
Disclosure Guidance, Costs Orders, Case Management, Summary Assessment of Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Disclosure Guidance Costs Orders Case Management Summary Assessment of 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Voltaire Capital Holdings Limited

Claimant/respondent

Gemini Investment Holding Limited

Claimant/respondent

Marchmont Limited

Claimant/respondent

March CP Limited

Claimant/respondent

OS Capital Holding Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Eric Watson

Defendant/applicant

Krishan Rattan

Defendant/applicant

Miles Leahy

Defendant/applicant

Startrader Pro Limited

Defendant/applicant

SBL Holdings Limited

Defendant/applicant

Tim Connell

Defendant/applicant

William Gibson

Defendant/applicant

Shamyl Malik

Defendant/applicant

Ramy Soliman

Defendant/applicant

Sam Watson

Defendant/applicant

Notesco Financial Services Limited

Defendant/applicant

Notesco UK Limited

Defendant/applicant

Daniel Fields

Defendant/applicant

Green Fields Management LLP

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Litigation / Costs Determination Following Disclosure Guidance Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default costs position under PD57AD paragraph 11.5 should be departed from in favour of the Claimants
  2. 2 Appropriate quantum of costs to be awarded

Ratio Decidendi

Given the contested and substantial nature of the disclosure guidance hearing, the Claimants' overall success, and the disproportionate approach of the Second Defendant, it is appropriate to depart from the default costs position and order the Second Defendant to pay the Claimants' costs, subject to a 10% reduction for the Second Defendant's limited success.

Court Disposition

Second Defendant ordered to pay Claimants' costs of the Disclosure Guidance Application, summarily assessed.

Orders

  • Second Defendant to pay Claimants' costs, summarily assessed at £63,267.00