Nestec S.A. & Ors v Dualit Ltd & Ors

On summary assessment of costs, the court may allow rates above guideline hourly rates where specialist solicitors who conducted the underlying patent litigation reasonably handled a related procedural application. The relevant question is whether the rates and work were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. A reduction may be made where preparation time exceeds what was reasonably necessary, even where the application was important and the work was undertaken thoroughly.

The judgment concerned summary assessment of costs following an order requiring the applicant to pay the claimants’ costs of an application concerning documents used in the patent litigation. The claimants sought £9,553.46. Objections were made to the allocation of preparation time, the solicitors’ hourly rates, alleged duplication, and the time spent preparing the application. The defendants’ costs were also assessed.

1. The court rejected the proposed 50/50 allocation of preparation time to documents on which the applicant had succeeded. One document had been supplied promptly, and no objection had been made to two others. No deduction was therefore justified.
2. The court declined to reduce the claimants’ solicitors’ rates to the guideline rates for a Central London firm. Although the application was procedural, it concerned documents that had played a part at trial. It was reasonable and proportionate for the specialist solicitors who had conducted the patent case to deal with it at their existing rates. Requiring new solicitors at lower rates could increase overall costs and would deprive the application of relevant case knowledge.
3. The court accepted that two solicitors attending the hearing was reasonable because the application was important. The defendants’ own attendance arrangements provided limited support for that conclusion.
4. Preparation time of approximately 15 hours, in addition to partner time, was excessive. The application could reasonably have been completed in about 10 hours. The claimants’ costs were therefore reduced from approximately £9,500 to £8,000.
5. The defendants’ claimed 5.7 hours were reasonable and their costs were summarily assessed at £6,230.