LLC Eurochem North-West-2 & Anor v Societe Generale SA & Ors (Costs)

In determining costs, the court should assess the parties’ reasonable costs by reference to the outcome of each application, the degree of success, the work reasonably required, and the conduct of the parties. Guideline hourly rates are relevant, but reducing costs to those rates may be excessive where the circumstances justify higher rates; a proportionate reduction may instead be appropriate. A party that substantially succeeds may recover costs even where it does not prevail on every issue. Parties who attend only as observers and make no submissions will ordinarily have no recoverable costs.

Following the trial, the court determined reserved costs arising from two applications. The first concerned disclosure sought from Tecnimont. The Claimants succeeded at a later hearing concerning one document but did not pursue the remaining relief. The second application, brought by Tecnimont, challenged confidentiality claims over 55 documents. The Claimants abandoned confidentiality for most documents, while succeeding on some of the documents that remained contested.

The court also considered whether SocGen and ING, which participated to differing extents, should receive costs. The central issues were the parties’ relative success, the reasonableness and scale of the costs claimed, and the relevance of CPR guideline hourly rates.

1. Disclosure application. Tecnimont was entitled to its reasonable costs of the original disclosure application, excluding the later hearing on 13 June 2025. The Claimants were entitled to their reasonable costs of that later hearing, at which they succeeded in obtaining disclosure.
2. The court assessed reasonableness by comparing the costs incurred and reducing Tecnimont’s recorded hours by approximately 40%, because the hours claimed for the later hearing were excessive. Both parties’ hourly rates were materially above the CPR guideline rates for London band 1. A further reduction to guideline rates would have been excessive, so the court reduced both parties’ solicitors’ fees by approximately 30%. The resulting figures were approximately £42,000 for Tecnimont and £44,000 for the Claimants, producing a net payment of £2,000 by Tecnimont.
3. Confidentiality application. Tecnimont had substantially succeeded. The Claimants’ abandonment of confidentiality claims for most documents justified an award to Tecnimont, notwithstanding the Claimants’ success concerning some documents, including material relating to CJEU proceedings and the transcript of evidence.
4. Applying a 30% reduction to reflect the CPR guideline rates, and a further reduction for the degree of the Claimants’ success, the Claimants were ordered to pay Tecnimont £19,000 for the 25 June 2025 hearing.
5. SocGen was not entitled to costs for attending the 13 June hearing as an observer without making submissions. Neither SocGen’s nor ING’s involvement in the confidentiality application justified a costs award. The overall net result was that the Claimants were ordered to pay Tecnimont £17,000.