Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 2596  (TCC)
Case No: HT-10-130 and HT-10-173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 19/10/2010

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE EDWARDS-STUART
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	Gibraltar Residential Properties Limited	Claimant	
	- and -		
	Gibralcon 2004 SA	Defendant	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Gabriel Moss QC (instructed by Systech Solicitors) for the Claimant
Manus McMullan QC (instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP) for the Defendant

Hearing date: 29 September 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment

The Honourable Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart :
Introduction 
1.	This is a judgment on the assessment of costs following the dismissal of two applications by the Defendant (“Gibralcon”) seeking declarations that the English court has no jurisdiction to hear these claims because, prior to the commencement of each action, Gibralcon became the subject of insolvency proceedings in Spain.  Gibralcon is a company registered in Spain. The Claimant (“GRPL”) is a company registered in Gibraltar.
2.	It is agreed that the costs must follow the event and I consider that the costs should be assessed on the standard basis (but GRPL submits that, even on the standard basis, it is entitled to recover 100% its costs). 
3.	GRPL’s total costs for preparation, instructing counsel and attendance at the hearing (by solicitors, expert and leading counsel) amount to £90,686.39.  Although not strictly relevant to the exercise that I have to perform, I note that Gibralcon’s costs amounted to about £140,000.  Whilst accepting that an applicant’s costs are always likely to be significantly higher than a respondent’s costs, I regard a difference of over 50% as being very much on the high side.
4.	The points made by Gibralcon are as follows:
(1)	It is said that the hours for “Attendances on Opponents” is high, and that they should be reduced to 7 hours per solicitor.  The consequence would be that this item would be reduced to £3,255 (by £754.50, from £4,009.50).
(2)	As to the hours for “Attendances on Counsel (including counsel’s clerk)”, it is said that only 20 hours of the partner’s time should be included.  The consequence would be that this item would be reduced to £5,800 (by £6,937, from £12,737).
(3)	Gibralcon submits that it is not at all clear as to what “Other Work, not covered by the above” was undertaken and that these costs, in the sum of £3,833, should be disallowed in full.
(4)	The costs claimed for “Attendance at the Hearing” was described as “anticipated”.  It is said that the hours should be reduced to 5 hours per solicitor (which would represent the hearing time, but not travelling costs and subsequent follow-up).  Gibralcon says that the consequence is that these costs should be reduced to £2,325 (by £2,325, from £4,650).
(5)	Finally, Gibralcon says that it does not understand why a solicitor was engaged “Travelling and Waiting”.  It says that these costs of £542.50 should be disallowed.

My assessment 
5.	Adopting the above numbering, my considerations and conclusions are:
(1)	In a two party case I would have expected the hours spent on attendances on opponents to be the same for each side.  I therefore reduce this item accordingly, which results in a reduction of £667.
(2)	The hours for attendance on counsel, 46.3 hours, including 40.3 hours of the partner’s time, looks high when compared with the £24,000 or so claimed by Mr Gabriel Moss QC, leading counsel for GRPL (whose fees are not challenged), for preparation and drafting submissions, which must have included discussions with those instructing him.  Whilst I do not doubt that the time was spent, and it is suggested that a significant proportion of it was spent talking to various clerks, I consider that it should be reduced by 10 hours in order to arrive at a figure that is reasonable and proportionate.  The consequence is that these costs should be reduced by £2,900.
(3)	The item described as “Other Work, not covered by the above” is said to have included time spent instructing the solicitor assisting because the relevant partner was on holiday.  It does not seem reasonable that all this additional time should fall on Gibralcon.  I propose to reduce this item by 4 hours of partner time, which amounts to £1,160.
(4)	To reduce the time spent attending at the hearing to 5 hours, as Gibralcon contends, would be too harsh, since it would allow no time for travelling or post judgment follow up (which is included in this item).  Instead, I propose to reduce these costs by 2 hours for both partner and solicitor assisting, which reduces the item by £930.
(5)	This item was the result of the need to deliver a Supplemental Bundle to the court which was said to have been delayed by late delivery of documents by Gibralcon.  It was decided to send a solicitor to take it personally.  I accept this item.
6.	This amounts to a total reduction of £5,657.
7.	Accordingly I assess GRPL’s costs in the sum of £85,030.  That sum is to be paid by Gibralcon within 21 days following the day of issue of this judgment.