Costs
Filatona Trading Ltd and another v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP [2024] EWHC 2751 (Comm)
The claimants successfully applied for Norwich Pharmacal relief against QE to disclose information about the source of the ‘Glavstroy Report’. QE resisted the application and did not indicate their position on the authenticity of the report despite discrepancies being highlighted. The court found QE failed to make urgent enquiries into the report’s authenticity after issues were raised, which increased costs unnecessarily. QE submitted that it should be awarded its costs as per the general rule in Norwich Pharmacal cases, as it had reasonable grounds to resist disclosure.
The claimants submitted that QE should not be awarded costs and should instead pay 70% of their costs due to QE’s unreasonable and adversarial conduct which increased costs.
The court ordered QE to pay 70% of its costs of resisting the Norwich Pharmacal application, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed, and the claimants to pay the remaining 30% of QE’s costs of resisting the application and QE’s reasonable costs of complying with the
