Libyan Investment Authority & Ors v King & Ors (Re Costs) [2023] EWHC 434 (Ch) (24 February 2023)

Libyan Investment Authority & Ors v King & Ors (Re Costs) [2023] EWHC 434 (Ch) (24 February 2023)

The claimants pursued speculative litigation involving serious allegations of fraud and dishonesty without sufficient evidential basis, rejected reasonable settlement offers, and strayed beyond their pleaded case; these factors cumulatively justify awarding costs on the indemnity basis.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 434 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Libyan Investment Authority; Claimant: LIA Advisory Services (UK) Limited; Claimant: Maplecross Holdings Investment Co Limited; Defendant: Mr Roger Milner King; Defendant: International Group Limited; Defendant: Beeson Property Investments Limited; Defendant: Stoke Park Estates (formerly known as Beeson Investments); Defendant: Mr Charles Montgomery Merry; Defendant: Conrad Strategic Partners Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Order / Post Trial
Outcome
Costs awarded on the indemnity basis against the claimants.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Fraud Allegations, Litigation Conduct
Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Fraud Allegations Litigation Conduct

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Libyan Investment Authority

Claimant

LIA Advisory Services (UK) Limited

Claimant

Maplecross Holdings Investment Co Limited

Claimant

Mr Roger Milner King

Defendant

International Group Limited

Defendant

Beeson Property Investments Limited

Defendant

Stoke Park Estates (formerly known as Beeson Investments)

Defendant

Mr Charles Montgomery Merry

Defendant

Conrad Strategic Partners Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Order / Post Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded on the indemnity basis or standard basis
  2. 2 Effect of failed allegations of fraud and dishonesty on costs assessment
  3. 3 Impact of speculative litigation and settlement offers on costs

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants pursued speculative litigation involving serious allegations of fraud and dishonesty without sufficient evidential basis, rejected reasonable settlement offers, and strayed beyond their pleaded case; these factors cumulatively justify awarding costs on the indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded on the indemnity basis against the claimants.

Orders

  • Claimants to pay defendants' costs on the indemnity basis.