[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions >> LLC Eurochem North-West 2 & Anor v Societe Generale SA & Ors (Re Costs) [2025] EWHC 1999 (Comm) (31 July 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/1999.html Cite as: [2025] EWHC 1999 (Comm)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
COMMERCIAL COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, WC4A 1NL
		31 July 2025

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10:30am on 31/07/25 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives. .............................

Mr Justice Bright:

1. Following the conclusion of the trial of this matter, I have to deal with various reserved questions of costs.

The Claimants' application of 21 March 2025; PTR on 8 April 2025 and hearing on 13 June 2025

2. By an application notice issued on 21 March 2025, the Claimants applied for wide-ranging disclosure relief against the Third Party ("Tecnimont"). The application was heard by Henshaw J at the PTR, on 8 April 2025. The application was dismissed as regards most of the relief sought, but some items were adjourned, pending Tecnimont's search of a laptop that had recently been discovered. For this reason, Henshaw J's order on the PTR reserved the costs of the application of 21 March 2025.
3. The search of that laptop revealed the existence of an additional relevant document – namely, a chain of emails between Tecnimont and the Comitato di Sicurezza Finanziaria ("CSF"), a department within the Italian Ministry of the Economy and Finance. Tecnimont refused to disclose the document, on the ground that production was prohibited under Italian law.
4. This led to a further hearing in respect of this particular document, which I dealt with in my judgment of 13 June 2025. I found in the Claimants' favour and ordered that the document should be disclosed. At the hearing on 13 June 2025, the Claimants did not pursue any other part of the application of 21 March 2025.
5. The Claimants have not sought the costs incurred at the PTR in relation to their application of 21 March 2025 and reserved by Henshaw J. They have sought the costs that they incurred on the hearing on 13 June 2025, totalling (in UK£) £55,111.43 - £37,074.43 charged by their solicitors (including €6,295.84 charged by Italian lawyers), and counsel's fees of £18,037.00.
6. Tecnimont seeks all the costs referable to the original application of 21 March 2025, but not all of those referable to the hearing on 13 June 2025. A statement of costs dated 7 April 2025 set out a total sum in respect of the application of 21 March 2025 of £101,502.60 (of which £36,000 represented counsel's fees).
7. In relation to the hearing of 13 June 2025, Tecnimont provided a separate statement of costs, setting out total costs for that hearing of £143,258.50, all charged by their solicitors. Tecnimont sought one-third of this figure.
8. In principle, Tecnimont is entitled to the reasonable costs of the application save for those referable to the hearing on 13 June 2025; and the Claimants are entitled to the reasonable costs of the hearing on 13 June 2025.
9. The Claimants have suggested that the hours spent by Tecnimont's team were excessive. It is very difficult for me to gauge how many solicitor-hours would have been reasonable, but the difference between the Claimants' costs in relation to the hearing of 13 June 2025 and Tecnimont's is striking, and is largely attributable to the number of hours recorded by Tecnimont's solicitors being very much greater. I consider it necessary to reduce Tecnimont's hours by approximately 40% - i.e., to about £60,000.
10. Both the Claimants' and Tecnimont's hourly rates were considerably above the CPR guideline rates for London band 1. If I were to reduce the solicitors' fees to the guideline hourly rates, the result would be to reduce them by about a further 40%. That seems to me excessive. I prefer to reduce them both by about 30%.
11. This takes me to figures of about £42,000 in favour of Tecnimont on the original application, and about £44,000 in favour of the Claimants on the hearing of 13 June 2025. My order therefore is that Tecnimont should pay the Claimants £2,000.
12. The First to Third Defendants ("SocGen") did not seek any costs in relation to the application of 21 March 2025, in so far as costs were reserved at the PTR. However, they did seek costs in relation to the hearing on 13 June 2025. As they attended only as observers and made no submissions, that was ambitious. They are not entitled to any costs in relation to the hearing on 13 June 2025.
13. The Fourth and Fifth Defendants ("ING") did not seek any costs under this heading.

Tecnimont's application of 23 June 2025; hearing on 25 June 2025

14. By an application notice issued on 23 June 2025, Tecnimont challenged the Claimants' claim to confidentiality in respect of 55 documents. This was dealt with in my judgment of 26 June 2025, [2025] EWHC 1614 (Comm).
15. As that judgment noted at [17], upon receipt of the application and of Tecnimont's skeleton argument, the Claimants abandoned any claim to confidentiality in respect of most of the 55 documents – including some of the documents which had initiated the Claimants' original assertion of confidentiality, and had led to the court setting up a confidentiality club. My judgment therefore only dealt with a handful of the 55 documents, on which the outcome was fairly balanced, some being determined in Tecnimont's favour and some in the Claimants' favour. It follows that Tecnimont was generally successful, but not entirely.
16. However, it is right to note that, of the matters that remained contentious at the hearing, two of those that consumed most time and attention were (i) various documents relating to proceedings before the CJEU and (ii) the transcript of Mr Fokin's evidence. On these, the Claimants prevailed.
17. While the application was Tecnimont's, SocGen and ING were actively interested in the outcome and supportive of Tecnimont's submissions. Their position on specific documents was set out in writing in advance of the hearing, and it may have contributed to the concessions made by the Claimants. ING (but not SocGen) then made brief oral submissions at the hearing, most concerned with the transcript of Mr Fokin's evidence (on which the Claimants prevailed).
18. Against this background, Tecnimont submitted that it had substantially won. The Claimants said that the confidential status of the documents had only ever been intended to be provisional, and that they had responded promptly to Tecnimont's application when made, agreeing that nearly all need not be treated as confidential; they then achieved a significant measure of success in relation to the few that remained contentious.
19. I agree with Tecnimont on this. It is not acceptable for the Claimants to insist on confidentiality at every previous stage of the proceedings and then agree that the relevant documents are not in fact confidential at the last minute, when challenged by an application. If Tecnimont had not issued its application, and prepared for the hearing on the basis that all the documents were said to be confidential, it would not have got the result that it deserved.
20. Tecnimont's statement of costs for the hearing on 25 June 2025 set out a total of £34,218.75 (all solicitors' fees). The Claimants' statement of costs set out a total of £17,927, of which £12,427 represents solicitors' fees and £5,500 counsel's fees. It is unsurprising that Tecnimont's solicitors' hours were more substantial, as they were largely incurred before the Claimants' concession in relation to the majority of the documents.
21. However, I must again apply a reduction of 30%, to accommodate some reflection of the CPR guideline rates. Applying a further reduction to reflect the degree of the Claimants' success, the Claimants must pay Tecnimont £19,000.
22. Neither SocGen's nor ING's involvement requires or justifies any award of costs.

Overall net result

23. The overall net result is that the Claimants must pay Tecnimont £17,000.