Approved Costs Ruling
The Honourable Mrs Justice Cockerill DBE
IN THE HIGH COURTS OF JUSTICE Claim No: CL-2020-000748 BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS
COMMERCIAL COURT (KBD)
The Honourable Mrs Justice Cockerill DBE
B E T W E E N :
(1) FIESTA HOTELS AND RESORTS SL
(2) RESIDENCIAL MARINA SL
(3) RESIDENCIAL ES VIVE SA
(4) DOMINICAN ENTERTAINMENT (LUXEMBOURG) SARL
Claimants
and
(1) DEUTSCHE BANK AG
(2) DEUTSCHE BANK AG, LONDON BRANCH
Defendants
EDWARD LEVEY KC, LAURIE BROCK and IAN SIMESTER (Instructed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimants
ALEXANDER POLLEY KC and WILLIAM DAY (Instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) appeared on behalf of the Defendants
----------------------
Costs Ruling
----------------------
Digital Transcription by Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground 46 Chancery Lane WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400
Web: www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/ Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
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.
WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
MRS JUSTICE COCKERILL:
You have argued costs on the basis that one looks separately at disclosure and adjournment; and in relation to disclosure, it might be said that the claimants had a score draw and a limited amount of success, but lost a certain amount.
On adjournment, it might be said that the defendants lost that, but they had a good amount of success in resisting the disclosure application. But it seems to me that actually quite a lot of what we have done today interrelates. The adjournment issue (which was never an adjournment application, of course), was raised in part because of the multiplicity of disclosure applications which were on the horizon and the difficulties which the parties have thus far encountered in getting positive engagement between themselves in relation to disclosure. Further the adjournment issue has not quite gone away, it has been parked on the basis that while I am setting a timetable if matters cannot be progressed constructively, the concerns will not have gone away, so it may come back in due course on that basis.
All in all, the disclosure application and the adjournment issue combination has enabled the court to take a slightly holistic view in relation to the problems which have started to beset this case; to conduct a thorough reset, to look in detail, not just at the issues in relation to the one remaining live application, but also to provide some indications as to the way that the parties need to approach the other disclosure applications going forward. All of which has enabled us to put ourselves in the position where we can set dates to maintain the trial, where one of the remaining issues has gone away and where we can certainly aim with a degree of optimism for the adjournment dark cloud to disperse.
In those circumstances, this hearing, I am going to say, is costs in the case. However, the parties should be in absolutely no doubt at all that as regards future applications in relation to disclosure in particular and anything which impacts on the trial timetable, any lack of reasonable engagement, any lack of an attempt to resolve matters in a sensible manner, is likely to be met with a fairly stringent costs order on the losing parties' part. So this is effectively the last chance saloon for a charitable approach. There must be reasonable engagement, and we hope that it will continue off camera and we will see as little as possible of you in the future.
But this hearing: costs in the case.
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.
Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS
Tel No: 020 7404 1400
Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk