Tullett Prebon Plc & Ors v BGC Brokers LP & Ors

Where a party succeeds on an interlocutory application, the court may award its costs in full if the overall charge is proportionate to the complexity and context of the issue. An issue is not necessarily straightforward merely because the ultimate answer, once identified, is uncomplicated. The court may consider the work required to examine the underlying issues and the evidential contribution relevant to the application. In assessing proportionality, the court may also take account of the nature of the wider litigation and avoid unnecessary fragmentation of the costs assessment.

The claimants successfully applied to add named desk heads to a confidentiality club for the disclosure of certain figures. On 17 November 2010, the court allowed that application and directed written submissions on costs. The claimants sought costs of £10,865. The defendants accepted that the claimants should recover their costs in principle, but contended that the amount was disproportionate and that the issue had been simple.

The court therefore determined the appropriate amount of costs payable in relation to the successful application.

1. The court held that the issue was not straightforward. Although the answer was not particularly difficult once the point had been identified, determining it required examination of the issues in the damages assessment and of how evidence from desk heads could contribute.

2. The defendants’ opposition itself supported the conclusion that the matter was not straightforward. The court therefore rejected the submission that the overall charge was disproportionate.

3. The court accepted that an argument could be made for treating the £765 charge for the letter dated 1 November as unnecessary. In the context of the litigation, however, the court regarded that approach as an unnecessary complication.

4. The costs payable by the defendants were assessed at £10,865.

Not stated in the judgment.