AerCap Ireland Ltd & Ors v Hainan Airlines Holding Co Ltd

In assessing costs summarily, the court may allow for the need to undertake thorough work in a substantial claim, particularly where the opposing party has put the claimant to proof. That does not justify every item of time claimed. The court may identify indications of excess, including duplicated attendances, excessive conferences, overlong hearings and disproportionate document work, and make a broad reduction without conducting a detailed mathematical assessment of every item.

The judgment concerned the costs payable in substantial commercial proceedings, including costs incurred during a summary judgment application. The defendant accepted the general incidence of costs but argued that the amounts claimed were disproportionate to the complexity of the claim.

The court considered the justification for the claimant’s thorough preparation, the hourly rates claimed and the detail of the costs schedule. The central issue was the reasonable amount to be ordered on a summary basis.

1. The court was not persuaded that the claim was so uncomplicated that the costs claimed were necessarily disproportionate. The defendant had put the claimants to proof, and careful preparation, including checking the evidence and documents, was justified.
2. Nevertheless, the costs schedule contained indications of excess. These included substantial time spent attending on the client and counsel, overlapping fee-earner attendance, a hearing listed for slightly too long, attendance by two people throughout the hearing, and extensive time spent on pleadings, witness statements and documents.
3. The court declined to undertake a complex mathematical exercise to determine the reasonable figure for every stage. It was sufficient to assess the schedule as a whole, identify a degree of excess and order an amount fairly reflecting what would likely emerge from detailed assessment.
4. The court ordered payment of £50,000 in respect of the claim, against £78,848.86 sought, and £70,000 in respect of the summary judgment application, against £99,170.22 sought.