Sotheby's v Mark Weiss Ltd & Ors

When managing costs, the court must assess whether proposed budgets fall within reasonable and proportionate bounds. Parties may choose an extensive or premium level of legal service, but an opposing party should not ordinarily bear that additional expense through an adverse costs order. Costs budgets may be approved, reduced, or returned for revision where figures are excessive or inadequately justified. The court may also cap recoverable costs for a case management conference where incurred costs are plainly too high, while leaving detailed assessment to the costs judge.

This was a case management conference in commercial proceedings brought by Sotheby's against Mark Weiss Limited, Fairlight Art Ventures Ltd and Mark Adrian F. Weiss. Mr Justice Andrew Baker considered the parties' costs budgets, incurred costs for the conference, proposed trial listing, expert evidence arrangements and the possibility of a future summary judgment application. The central issues were whether the proposed budgets satisfied the applicable costs-management requirements and whether recovery of the claimant's incurred conference costs should be capped.

1. Costs budgeting. The court agreed that costs management orders should be made. The budgets for statements of case, disclosure, witness statements, pre-trial review and certain applications were approved, subject to the stated revisions and clarifications.
2. Experts' reports. The claimant's proposed budget of £182,700 was not approved. The anticipated legal-team time was disproportionate when compared with the experts' fees and the independent role of experts. All parties were required to reconsider their figures, taking account of joint instruction and a properly light-touch approach by solicitors and counsel.
3. Trial preparation and trial. The claimant's trial-preparation budget was reduced to £95,000. The trial budgets were reduced to £550,000 for Sotheby's and £500,000 for the first and third defendants. The court considered that a premium level of service could be chosen privately, but could not reasonably be passed on to an opposing party under an adverse costs order.
4. Incurred costs and listing. Although the court was not conducting a summary assessment, incurred costs of more than £180,000 for the conference were excessive in absolute terms. Recovery of conference costs was therefore capped at £125,000, subject to assessment. The trial was listed for ten days with up to two days' pre-reading.
5. Summary judgment. The second defendant was neither encouraged nor prevented from applying for summary judgment. An application made only after witness statements and during preparation of expert evidence would be unusual and would require close justification.