NCN: [2024] EWHC 1679 (Admiralty)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS
OF ENGLAND AND WALES
KING’S BENCH DIVISIONRolls Building, Fetter Lane,
ADMIRALTY COURTLondon, EC4A 1NL
Before:
MRS JUSTICE COCKERILL
Between:
(1) SHELL UK LTD (2) FLUOR LTD | Claimants |
- and - | |
(1) GREENPEACE UK LTD (2) GRREENPEACE LTD (3) STICHTING GREENPEACE COUNCIL (4) IMOGAN MICHEL (5) CARLOS MARCELO BARIGGI AMARA (6) YAKUP CETINKAYA (7) USNEA GRANGER (8) YEB SANO (9) WAYA PESIK MAWERU (10) MASTER OF M/V “SEA BEAVER” (11) PASCAL HAVEZ (12) SILJA ZIMMERMANN | Defendants |
ALEX GUNNING KC (instructed by Norton Rose Fulbright LLP) for the Claimants
RICHARD LORD KC and NAOMI HART for the Defendants
Approved Judgment
(Corrected pursuant to CPR 40.12)
If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.
Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. DX 410 LDE
Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com
Web: www.martenwalshcherer.com
MRS JUSTICE COCKERILL:
I have listened very carefully to what has been said and was very impressed with all the points that were made in oral argument which Ms Hart has picked up to deploy in her costs submissions. She makes a good point, which was partially acknowledged by Mr Gunning, that this has an element of case management about it. I am going to bring an element of that into what I do on costs.
The strict analysis of this is that Mr Justice Andrew Baker was alarmed by the sound of the length of the pleading and he obviously did not think it was likely to be compliant and he expressed concerns about it, ultimately this has come to a hearing and I have said that it is not compliant, and so effectively the defendants have lost this. However at the same time it has nonetheless had a useful case management role, in that we have discussed exactly how the case stacks up, the way in which there are going to be issues as to evidence and what the best use of schedule 1 is.
So although I am going to broadly award costs to the claimants because they have effectively won this, it seems to me it was necessary to come to this hearing - because every indication that I have had during the course of this morning has been that the defendants are very, very wedded to their pleading and it was only in the face of my determination to bring down the length of the pleading that the length of the pleading has come down. So as I say, I think it was necessary to come to this hearing and although there was an offer halfway to resolution, as Ms Hart put it, halfway to resolution is not quite there at all. So overall we did need to come to a hearing but also we have got something useful out of it.
That being the case, I am going to award the claimants £17,500 of their costs. That reflects a little bit of a reduction in the light of the specific point which Ms Hart made on the documents schedule, which was a good point. The fee earners point is not so fantastic, 10 hours approving a bundle which was not that complicated a bundle is a bit much. There is also just generally a little reduction to reflect that case management element highlighted in Ms Hart’s submissions.
- - - - - - - - - - -
(This judgment has been approved and subsequently corrected by the Judge.)
Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd
2nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP
Telephone No: 020 7067 2900 DX: 410 LDE
Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com
Web: www.martenwalshcherer.com