Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd & Ors. v LG Display Co. Ltd & Anor.

On a summary assessment, costs claimed at hourly rates substantially above the applicable guideline rates require a clear and compelling justification. It is insufficient to rely generally on the commercial, competition or international character of litigation. The particular features of the case must justify the departure. The guideline rate for London 1 already reflects very heavy commercial and corporate work.

This was a costs judgment following an appeal from the Commercial Court, decided by Sir Michael Burton in [2021] EWHC 1429 (Comm). LG, the successful respondent, was entitled to its appeal costs on the standard basis, to be summarily assessed.

LG claimed £72,818.21, including solicitor rates substantially above the London 1 guideline hourly rates. The issue was whether the character of the litigation justified those rates and, if not, the proper amount of the summary assessment.

1. The court summarily assessed LG’s costs of the appeal at £55,000, rather than the £72,818.21 claimed.

2. Per Males LJ, with whom Snowden and Lewison LJJ agreed, the London 1 guideline rates already proceed on the basis of very heavy commercial and corporate work. A receiving party seeking to charge the paying party rates substantially above those figures must provide a clear and compelling case-specific justification: [2022] EWCA Civ 466, [4]-[6].

3. A bare reliance on the fact that litigation is commercial, concerns competition law, or has an international element does not establish that justification. Those features must have a particular quality in the case which warrants the higher rates: [6].

4. No such feature was present. The appeal lasted one day, concerned only the appropriate forum for trial, involved limited documentation, and concerned a claim which was modest by commercial standards. Although LG’s deployment of solicitors and junior counsel was generally appropriate, its costs required reduction: [7]-[8].

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): LG was the successful respondent on the appeal. The court assessed LG’s appeal costs at £55,000 in this costs judgment.

• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court: judgment of Sir Michael Burton GBE, [2021] EWHC 1429 (Comm), from which the appeal was brought.