Indemnity Costs orders - Euroption v Skandinaviska
Posted: in by Michelle Barron.
The parties had agreed that the Claimant was liable for the Defendant’s costs, and so the issues were whether the Defendant’s costs should be reduced by 15%, given their refusal of mediation; and the basis of assessment. The Court held that given that the Defendant had made a without prejudice offer to bear its own costs should the claim be withdrawn, and the lack of prospects of the claim, the Defendant’s costs should be awarded in full, and an interim payment of £1.25 million was awarded. The Claimant submitted that their conduct did not justify an Order for Indemnity costs, and hindsight should not be used where a case is held to be hopeless. The Court held that the claim was “highly speculative”; “grossly exaggerated”; “opportunistic”; “displayed very little regard to proportionality or reasonableness” and all issues were pursued “at full length”. It also stated that the claim involved “cherry-picking” share-trades which made it worse off, while ignoring those from which it benefited. It also noted that the claim went against the advice given by the Claimant’s own expert. As a result, the Defendant was awarded its costs on the Indemnity Basis.