Maranello Rosso Limited v Lohomij BV & Ors

Maranello Rosso Limited v Lohomij BV & Ors

The respondent was not a pure funder but a commercial funder with significant interest in the outcome, co-owned the litigation, and his funding caused the defendants to incur costs. It is just and fair to make a non-party costs order against him for costs up to 6 May 2021 and one third of costs thereafter, assessed on the indemnity basis.

Parties
Claimant: Maranello Rosso Limited; Defendant/applicant: Lohomij BV; Defendant/applicant: Bonhams 1793 Limited; Defendant/applicant: Bonhams & Butterfields Auctioneers Corporation; Defendant/applicant: Evert Louwman; Defendant: Edward Lee; Defendant/applicant: James Knight; Defendant: Anthony Maclean; Respondent: Hamish Vans Agnew
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Non Party Costs Order / Post Judgment, Costs Application
Outcome
Non-party costs order granted against respondent.
Legal Topics
Non Party Costs Orders, Litigation Funding, Indemnity Costs, Commercial Litigation Funding
Civil Procedure Costs Non Party Costs Orders Litigation Funding Indemnity Costs Commercial Litigation Funding

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maranello Rosso Limited

Claimant

Lohomij BV

Defendant/applicant

Bonhams 1793 Limited

Defendant/applicant

Bonhams & Butterfields Auctioneers Corporation

Defendant/applicant

Evert Louwman

Defendant/applicant

Edward Lee

Defendant

James Knight

Defendant/applicant

Anthony Maclean

Defendant

Hamish Vans Agnew

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Non Party Costs Order / Post Judgment, Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a non-party costs order should be made against the respondent as a commercial litigation funder
  2. 2 Extent of liability for costs of a non-party funder
  3. 3 Basis of assessment for costs against a non-party funder

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was not a pure funder but a commercial funder with significant interest in the outcome, co-owned the litigation, and his funding caused the defendants to incur costs. It is just and fair to make a non-party costs order against him for costs up to 6 May 2021 and one third of costs thereafter, assessed on the indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Non-party costs order granted against respondent.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay applicants’ costs at first instance incurred up to and including 6 May 2021 on the indemnity basis.
  • Respondent to pay one third of applicants’ costs at first instance incurred after 6 May 2021 on the indemnity basis.