Invenia Technical Computing Corporation & Anor v Hudson

The Applicant appeared in person via CVP Ram Lakshman (instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP) for the Respondents Hearing dates: 07 February 2024 ____________________

a. determine that there is a good reason to make an order for payment on account of costs in his favour subject to detailed assessment, as he prevailed on Invenia's EIO variation application. Invenia have failed to put forward any good reason why such an order should not be made, and such reasons as they have advanced generally rely on assertions and not on evidence of any probative value. In the alternative, if I do not order payment on account of costs, I should order that the detailed assessment of the costs be commenced forthwith, in order to ensure that he is not prejudiced;

c. order that Invenia pay his costs of and incidental to the payment on his payment on account application, and in the alternative to make no order as to costs on the basis of Invenia's failure to engage in ADR or accept the Applicant's open offer or mediation, and in the further alternative to make any order on the standard basis;

d. make no order as to costs with respect to the costs of the Invenia's January extension application, based on the evidence provided in HudsonWS9, and Invenia's failure to engage in ADR or accept the Applicant's open offer or mediation, and in the alternative to make any order on the standard basis.

a. �314,600, made up of �286,000 in his first costs statement and �28,000 in his second statement, ie, just over 393 hours at his claimed hourly rate of �800;