Ross Risby & Barnaby Yates report on the limited nature of a litigation solicitor’s potential exposure to litigation costs
In Mengiste v Endowment Fund for the Rehabilitation of Tigray [2013] EWHC 1087 (Ch), Peter Smith J considered the first stage of an application by the defendants for a wasted costs order, based on the conduct of the claimant’s solicitors in pursuing what the defendants characterised as hopeless litigation. The claimants’ claim, which concerned the disputed acquisition of shares in an Ethiopian company, hinged on expert evidence to establish that there was a real risk that they would not obtain a fair trial if the dispute was heard by the courts in Ethiopia. Peter Smith J rejected the claimant’s expert evidence as tendentious and acceded to the defendants’ application for a stay of the High Court proceedings.
In seeking wasted costs, the defendants argued that the claimants’ solicitors should not have allowed the expert’s flawed reports to be relied on to support the claim. The judgment contains a helpful reminder of
