LAPPET MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED & Anor v MR BASIL IBRAHIM RASSAM & Ors

Guideline hourly rates are not an absolute ceiling. A specialist solicitor may recover an uplift where the case requires specialist knowledge and the justification is specific to the work undertaken. The uplift remains subject to proportionality, including the value, complexity and importance of the claim.

Permission to appeal may be refused where the proposed point was not argued at first instance and the court has not had the opportunity to decide it. A claim which is not strictly a claim for money may nevertheless be assessed by reference to its financial value, complexity and importance when determining the appropriate forum. It may also be transferred under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 30.

This was a consequential judgment following the court’s earlier decision, reported at [2022] EWHC 1412 (Ch). The claimants had successfully resisted the defendants’ jurisdiction and transfer applications in trade mark infringement proceedings.

The court determined the recoverable costs of those applications, including the appropriate solicitor hourly rates, counsel’s fees and payment period. It also considered the defendants’ application for permission to appeal on the proposed contention that Page v Hewitts Solicitors and Lifestyle Equities C.C and Anor v Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited were wrongly decided.

1. Costs. The claimants were entitled in principle to the costs of the two unsuccessful applications. The criticism that no pre-action letter had been sent was rejected because, in a counterfeiting claim, it was reasonable to commence proceedings without prior notification where pre-action discussions would have had no real utility.
2. Hourly rates. The court applied the approach in Samsung v LG Display: a rate above the guideline rate requires a clear and compelling justification. The specialist procedural knowledge required for the jurisdiction and transfer applications supplied that justification. The court also relied on ABS Company Limited v Pantaenius UK Limited and others for the principle that specialist solicitors may recover an uplift where justified by the circumstances.
3. The rates claimed remained too high when compared with the Nottingham guideline rates and London Band 2 rates, and in view of proportionality and the potentially limited value of the claim. They were therefore reduced to £350 per hour for a Grade A partner and £230 per hour for a Grade C associate. Counsel’s fees were reduced from £8,400 to £6,000.
4. Post-hearing costs depended on whether the recalculated amount equalled or exceeded the defendants’ written offer. Payment of the costs was ordered within 14 days of hand-down.
5. Permission to appeal. Permission was refused. The proposed challenge to Page and Lifestyle Equities had not been argued at the hearing. The court considered it inappropriate to grant permission on a point which had not been addressed and whose validity it had not determined. The suggested distinction between an account generally and an account of profits was not immediately persuasive, but had not been explored.
6. The court rejected the contention that the earlier decisions gave claimants carte blanche as to forum. Financial value, complexity and importance remained relevant under Practice Direction 7A, paragraph 2.4, and an inappropriate claim could be transferred under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 30.

This was a first-instance consequential judgment following the court’s earlier judgment at [2022] EWHC 1412 (Ch). No appeal had been determined in the judgment itself.