DISMATRIX SPC & Ors v EQUITI CAPITAL UK LIMITED

Costs should ordinarily be determined at the hearing where the court has sufficient visibility of the relevant circumstances. A separate hearing should be listed only where a later court is likely to be materially better placed to decide costs and the course is proportionate under the overriding objective.

A foreign evidence-gathering process will ordinarily proceed on its own timetable and will not justify staying domestic case management, unless it concerns particularly key evidence. The existence of such a process may instead be taken into account when managing the case towards trial.

The claimants withdrew an application concerning a proposed stay, made in the context of an ongoing foreign evidence-gathering process under section 1782 of title 28 of the United States Code. The court considered whether costs should be reserved for determination at a later hearing or at the forthcoming case management conference.

The central issues were whether a later court would have materially better visibility of the circumstances relevant to costs and whether the foreign process justified delaying domestic case management.

1. Costs. The court refused to reserve costs. It was not persuaded that another court would be materially better placed to determine where the costs should fall. A separate hearing would be disproportionate and likely to burden either the court’s diary or the forthcoming case management conference.
2. Foreign evidence-gathering. The application had been made against the background of continuing depositions and other evidence. The fact that the section 1782 process was continuing did not make the timing of the application attributable solely to the motion to quash or justify reserving costs.
3. The court stated that foreign evidence-gathering ordinarily runs on a separate timetable. Unless particularly key evidence is involved, the domestic court would not normally await its outcome. The process should be treated as a factor for consideration at the case management conference and in planning the steps to trial. It was never likely, on the circumstances described, to provide a good reason for a case-management stay.
4. The defendants were awarded their costs, summarily assessed. The court applied a substantial reduction for excessive staffing, hourly rates, attendances, documentary work and counsel’s fees. The total award was £50,000.