Betta Oceanway Company v SC Tomini Trading SR (Costs)

An applicant who brings an unsuccessful application to intervene or be joined is a party to that application and may be ordered to pay the other parties’ costs. It is unnecessary to invoke the non-party costs regime where jurisdiction arises from the applicant’s status as a party to the application. The ordinary rule under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs, unless circumstances justify departure. Costs must remain reasonable and proportionate, and may be summarily assessed by adjusting excessive rates, staffing, preparation time and representation.

Mr George Vatistas applied to intervene in proceedings between Betta Oceanway Company and SC Tomini Trading SR, alternatively to be joined as a defendant. The applications were made under CPR r 3.1(2)(m) and CPR r 19.2(2). The court dismissed both applications after a hearing on 1 and 2 July 2024.

The parties subsequently made written submissions on costs. Betta and SC Tomini sought their costs from Mr Vatistas as the unsuccessful applicant. Mr Vatistas argued that costs should lie where they fell, or alternatively that the sums claimed were unreasonable and disproportionate. The issues were whether the court had jurisdiction to make costs orders against him, whether the ordinary costs rule should be displaced, and what sums should be assessed.

1. Entitlement to costs. Betta and SC Tomini were entitled to their costs of and occasioned by the applications. Mr Vatistas was a party to the applications because he instituted them by application notice. The court therefore had jurisdiction to make costs orders against him without resort to the non-party costs regime in CPR r 46.2.
2. The applications were pursued to further Mr Vatistas’s personal interests. They were not made necessary by Betta’s conduct. Betta and SC Tomini had acted reasonably and proportionately. Betta’s consent to joinder did not determine the issue, and SC Tomini was entitled to oppose the applications. Both parties’ attendance and assistance at the hearing were necessary.
3. The ordinary rule in CPR r 44.2 applied: the unsuccessful party should pay the successful parties’ costs. There were no peculiar circumstances requiring departure from that rule. Mr Vatistas had made the applications with knowledge of the likely costs consequences and had succeeded on neither application.
4. Assessment. The court summarily assessed Betta’s costs at £40,000. The assessment reflected reductions to the solicitors’ hourly rates, the use of Grade A fee earners for work suitable for lower grades, excessive time claimed for the skeleton argument, and the unnecessary attendance of two counsel. SC Tomini’s costs were summarily assessed at £70,000, reflecting disproportionate client-attendance time and excessive counsel fees.
5. Mr Vatistas was ordered to pay Betta £40,000 and SC Tomini £70,000 within 14 days.