CQ CentreVille-Gare 29/05/2012 - Ville de Cognac

APRIL 2009REED SMITHRS SHIPPING BULLETIN3 COSTS3.1 COSTS ESTIMATEIn Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Withers LLP – Lawtel 6.4.09 the Appellant solicitorsappealed against decisions of the costs judge as to how a costs estimate should be reflected inthe detailed assessment of two bills of costs.The Court of Appeal found that the costs judge did not discuss two matters which it mighthave been relevant to consider: what level of costs would have caused the Respondent tochange solicitors, and at what date between the estimate and trial would a revised estimatehave caused the Respondent to instruct other solicitors. However, it was not right to becritical of the judge in either of those respects in light of the way the case was presented. Thejudge's reasons were not inadequate nor was he wrong in law to conclude that theRespondent had shown how it relied on the estimate.It held that it was not necessary for the client to prove detriment in the sense of showing onthe balance of probabilities that it would have acted in a different way, which would haveturned out to be more advantageous to the client.However, it held that the costs judge gave inadequate reasons for selecting a 20 per centmargin over the estimate as a limit on the profit costs recoverable.3.2 INDEMNITY COSTSIn Colour Quest Ltd & Ors (Claimants) v (1) Total Downstream UK Plc (2) Total UKLtd (3) Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd (Defendants) : (1) Total Downstream UK Plc(2) Total UK Ltd (Part 20 Claimants) v Chevron Ltd (1st Part 20 Defendant/ThirdParty) & Total Milford Haven Refinery Ltd (Fourth Party) & Hertfordshire OilStorage Ltd (2nd Part 20 Defendant)- Lawtel 23.4.09 the Commercial Court determinedapplications for indemnity costs and interest following its decision on preliminary issues inproceedings arising out of the Buncefield oil storage depot explosion.The court had found that the first and second Defendants were vicariously liable for thenegligence which led to the explosion.It held that a denial of fault had been maintained by the first and second Defendants forsome two years after service of the defence. That was unreasonable to a marked extentsufficient to justify the award of indemnity costs. It was appropriate that the Claimantsshould recover indemnity costs in relation to the issue of negligence up to the date on whichresponsibility for the escape was finally confirmed.One Claimant was entitled to indemnity costs because it had done better than its Part 36offer. The appropriate date for the offer to take effect was when the offer had been clarified.That Claimant was also entitled to interest on the costs after that date at a rate of threemonth LIBOR plus four per cent.4912542- 4 -