Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc v Aeturnum Energy International Pte Ltd

A successful party will ordinarily recover its costs under CPR r. 44.2(2)(a). Summary assessment is appropriate where the relevant trial falls within the applicable short-trial procedure. Indemnity costs require more than continued disengagement from proceedings, although reasonable additional costs caused by that conduct may remain recoverable. Once a final injunction has been granted and the time for appealing has expired, the successful claimant no longer needs the protection of an interim cross-undertaking in damages. The undertaking and security provided for it may therefore be released.

This was a first-instance judgment on consequential matters following proceedings in which Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc succeeded against Aeturnum Energy International Pte Ltd and obtained a final mandatory injunction under the 22 December Order. The court determined the appropriate costs order, whether costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis, the amount of costs payable, the wording of the consequential declaratory order, and whether the claimant’s interim cross-undertaking in damages and related security should be released.

1. The claimant was the successful party. Applying CPR r. 44.2(2)(a), the defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs. The court accepted that summary assessment was appropriate because the trial was listed for one day and lasted less than half a day, while the later hearing lasted about one hour.

2. The defendant’s decision to engage and then disengage from the proceedings was unreasonable, but continued disengagement did not justify a further award of indemnity costs. The claimant could nevertheless recover the reasonable costs incurred in monitoring related Singapore proceedings and informing the court about them.

3. Taking account of the complexity and interconnectedness of the proceedings, the value of the non-monetary relief, the defendant’s disengagement, the work undertaken, the appropriateness of the rates, and counsel’s fees, the court found the costs reasonable and proportionate. The further costs were summarily assessed at £46,697.50.

4. The consequential order was framed to reflect the now-defined nature of the claimant’s liability to the head owners, while leaving the quantum to be ascertained. This wording was considered more likely to enable the claimant to submit an acceptable proof of debt in Singapore and avoided the need for further proceedings.

5. Following the grant of the final mandatory injunction, which had not been appealed and was no longer appealable, the claimant no longer required the interim cross-undertaking in damages. Applying Fenner v Wilson [1893] 2 Ch. 656, the court ordered release of the undertaking and the USD100,000 security held in the solicitors’ client account.

The judgment records that a final mandatory injunction had previously been granted under the 22 December Order. That order was not appealed, and the time for doing so had expired. The present judgment determined the consequential matters.