So Mr Labovitch appears to have missed the fact that the judge said he was going to come to the same conclusion as the one suggested by the Sisu lawyer i.e. everyone pays their own costs. Would the Sisu costs have been higher because they had 8 lawyers in court?
Also why is he commenting on it and not working on more important things like our new stadium, or our club for that matter.
Yes, but before you get to enthusiastic you should realise it was Higgs barrister who had trouble agreeing:
MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: You take instructions and I will sit
7 here unless anybody asks me othe
rwise. (Pause)
8 MR THOMPSON: My instructions are si
mple, given that there's
9 obviously been a judgment in bot
h directions, that there
10 could be no order as to costs.
That would be an order
11 that we would be content with.
I don't know whether
12 Mr Brennan has some other sugges
tion.
13 MR BRENNAN: My Lord, I wish life wa
s so simple, but the
14 test isn't simplicity; the test
is justice.
15 This was an ordinary County
Court claim, which
16 shouldn't have been brought on t
he basis that it was
17 brought and could and should hav
e been defended in the
18 counterclaim on the narrow basis
which has ultimately
19 succeeded. In the event, SISU s
ought to defend the case
20 inter alia on another basis, whi
ch was predicated on
21 stinging criticisms of the trust
ees' conduct, which were
22 unwarranted.
23 As a matter of principle I s
ay that the appropriate
24 order as to costs is that we sho
uld have to pay SISU the
25 proper and reasonable costs that
it would have incurred
157
1 had it defended the case on a pr
oper basis without
2 making the unwarranted criticism
s and, in those
3 circumstances, I would invite th
e court to grant SISU
4 their costs of the claim, less a
deduction, which, as
5 best you can, you think meets th
e justice of that case,
6 and order SISU to pay the costs
of the counterclaim.
7 Unfortunately, it's very dif
ficult to unravel it and
8 the matter will have to be put o
ff to a costs officer,
9 but the costs officer, will need
some guidance --
10 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: You might end u
p worse off than on
11 Mr Thompson's proposal. I know
that's not the test of
12 what I should do, but ...
13 MR BRENNAN: My instructing solicito
r is rather closer to
14 the costs than I am, so perhaps
I can take --
15 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Yes. It's not
obvious what the costs
16 are of the counterclaim and clai
m except, up to the time
17 there's a counterclaim, of cours
e, there weren't any
18 costs of that.
19 MR BRENNAN: Yes, I follow that.
20 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Once there was
a counterclaim...
21 MR BRENNAN: The claim rather took s
econd place thereafter.
22 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: They were both
sort of entangled with
23 each other to some extent. The
claim has obviously
24 persisted for another day at the
other end as well.
25 You have two days at the other e
nd.
158
1 MR BRENNAN: As I say, my instructin
g solicitor is closer to
2 costs. (Pause)
3 My Lord, these are not insig
nificant sums. I know
4 it's 4.40, but could I ask for f
ive minutes?
5 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Of course you m
ay. Call me back in
6 when you're ready.
7 (4.41 pm)
8 (A short break
)
9 (4.47 pm)
10 MR BRENNAN: My Lord, I'm very grate
ful for the extra time.
11 Mr Thompson's suggestion is a se
nsible one and we wish
12 to agree it.
13 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Well, I think i
t is the right
14 conclusion. I would have come t
o it anyway.
