Meretz Investments NV & Anor v ACP Ltd & Ors

Meretz Investments NV & Anor v ACP Ltd & Ors

The presumption that Berwin Leighton Paisner was retained by all defendants was not rebutted; equal apportionment of costs among ACP, FP, Mr Olsson and Mrs Olsson was a fair assessment as most work was common; costs for Mr Hawkins are allowable only for assistance as a solicitor and attendance at court, not for preparation of his witness statement as a witness of fact.

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 / Judgment
Outcome
Appeals by claimants dismissed; appeal by defendants allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Apportionment of Costs, Retainer, Detailed Assessment, Indemnity Principle
Civil Procedure Costs Apportionment of Costs Retainer Detailed Assessment Indemnity Principle

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 9 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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Berwin Leighton Paisner was retained by all defendants or only First Penthouse Limited
  2. 2 How costs should be apportioned among multiple defendants
  3. 3 Allowability of costs incurred in respect of Mr Hawkins

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption that Berwin Leighton Paisner was retained by all defendants was not rebutted; equal apportionment of costs among ACP, FP, Mr Olsson and Mrs Olsson was a fair assessment as most work was common; costs for Mr Hawkins are allowable only for assistance as a solicitor and attendance at court, not for preparation of his witness statement as a witness of fact.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Claimants’ appeal against apportionment of costs in the 1 May Order dismissed.
  • Claimants’ appeal against retainer in the 18 June Order dismissed.