Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a taxation of costs carried out by the Assistant Judicial Greffier ("the Greffier") dated 18th May, 2010. It raises an issue as to the correct test to be applied by this Court when hearing an appeal from a taxation and also two general points of interest as to the principles to be applied by the Greffier.
The case in question arose out of the provision of plant and services by the plaintiffs to the defendant at the deep water port of Luba in Equatorial Guinea, West Africa. There was a complex factual background and the contract in question was governed by English law. The original amount of the claim was US$9.1 million plus interest.
Bills of cost were subsequently submitted by the defendant for taxation. Bedell Cristin, who acted for the defendant, had employed the services of English solicitors (DLA Piper UK LLP, referred to hereafter as "DLA Piper") and English counsel. The Bedell Cristin bill was allowed in the sum of £134,288.83 together with disbursements of some £70,000, which comprised for the most part counsel's fees, which had been reduced by the Greffier on taxation. There is no appeal against this part of the Greffier's decision.
The defendant also submitted a bill from DLA Piper for taxation. This was submitted in the sum of £515,000 together with disbursements of £73,000.
The procedure on taxation is governed by RCR 12/11, the relevant part of which provides as follows:-
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.