Daniel Carlos Scenna & Anor v Persons Unknown using the identity “Nancy Chen” & Ors

Daniel Carlos Scenna & Anor v Persons Unknown using the identity “Nancy Chen” & Ors

The court found that while the Banks' solicitors charged at rates above the guideline London 1 rates, the case did not justify such rates and the appropriate starting point was London 2 rates. There was some duplication and excess in the Banks' costs, and counsel's fees were on the high side. Adopting a broad brush approach, the court reduced the costs to reasonable sums for each defendant.

Parties
Claimant: Daniel Carlos Scenna; Claimant: Host Growth Inc; Defendant: Persons Unknown Using the Identity 'Nancy Chen'; Defendant: Persons Unknown Using the Identity 'Vera'; Defendant: Pion Market Ltd; Defendant: QS Trading Ltd; Defendant: Win FY Pty Ltd; Defendant: Teco Industrial Pty Ltd; Defendant: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd; Defendant: Westpac Banking Corporation; Defendant: Dah Sing Bank Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Assessment After Judgment
Outcome
Claimants ordered to pay costs to Seventh and Eighth Defendant Banks, assessed summarily.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Summary Assessment, Indemnity Basis, Standard Basis
Civil Procedure Costs Assessment Summary Assessment Indemnity Basis Standard Basis

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Carlos Scenna

Claimant

Host Growth Inc

Claimant

Persons Unknown Using the Identity 'Nancy Chen'

Defendant

Persons Unknown Using the Identity 'Vera'

Defendant

Pion Market Ltd

Defendant

QS Trading Ltd

Defendant

Win FY Pty Ltd

Defendant

Teco Industrial Pty Ltd

Defendant

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd

Defendant

Westpac Banking Corporation

Defendant

Dah Sing Bank Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Assessment After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded to the Seventh and Eighth Defendant Banks?
  2. 2 Should costs be assessed on the indemnity or standard basis?
  3. 3 Are the claimed costs reasonable and proportionate?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the Banks' solicitors charged at rates above the guideline London 1 rates, the case did not justify such rates and the appropriate starting point was London 2 rates. There was some duplication and excess in the Banks' costs, and counsel's fees were on the high side. Adopting a broad brush approach, the court reduced the costs to reasonable sums for each defendant.

Court Disposition

Claimants ordered to pay costs to Seventh and Eighth Defendant Banks, assessed summarily.

Orders

  • Claimants to pay Seventh Defendant Bank £157,000 within 14 days.
  • Claimants to pay Eighth Defendant Bank £110,000 within 14 days.