Meretz Investments NV & Anor v ACP Ltd & Ors [2007] EWHC 2635 (Ch) (14 November 2007)

Meretz Investments NV & Anor v ACP Ltd & Ors [2007] EWHC 2635 (Ch) (14 November 2007)

The presumption of retainer was not rebutted; costs were properly apportioned equally among defendants as most work was common; costs for Mr Hawkins's witness statement preparation are only allowable to the extent they were performed as a solicitor, not as a witness of fact.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2635 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Meretz Investments NV; Claimant: Britel Corporation NV; Defendant: ACP Limited; Defendant: First Penthouse Limited; Defendant: Hakan Olov Olsson; Defendant: Annika Silja Olsson; Defendant: Fahad Al Tamimi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Costs Assessment / Judgment on Costs Appeals
Outcome
Appeals by claimants dismissed; appeal by defendants allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Apportionment of Costs, Retainer Liability, Indemnity Principle, Allowable Costs for Witness Preparation
Civil Procedure Costs Law Apportionment of Costs Retainer Liability Indemnity Principle Allowable Costs for Witness Preparation

Source-derived case record

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meretz Investments NV

Claimant

Britel Corporation NV

Claimant

ACP Limited

Defendant

First Penthouse Limited

Defendant

Hakan Olov Olsson

Defendant

Annika Silja Olsson

Defendant

Fahad Al Tamimi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Costs Assessment / Judgment on Costs Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether solicitors were retained by all defendants
  2. 2 Proper apportionment of costs among defendants
  3. 3 Allowability of costs for witness statement preparation

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of retainer was not rebutted; costs were properly apportioned equally among defendants as most work was common; costs for Mr Hawkins's witness statement preparation are only allowable to the extent they were performed as a solicitor, not as a witness of fact.

Court Disposition

Appeals by claimants dismissed; appeal by defendants allowed in part.

Orders

  • Claimants' appeal against apportionment of costs dismissed.
  • Claimants' appeal against retainer order dismissed.