BL-2020-001417 - [2025] EWHC 2487 (Ch)

If, contrary to my primary conclusion, the amount received from the litigation was in any sense caused by the original truncated services of Matrix, then the question would be what value, if any, was to be ascribed to the serviced provided upon the end-product being received. I do not accept that it would have any substantial value. In my judgment, the services would stand to be valued not at the time when they were provided (as would occur in a true value case), but at the time of the end-product being received, namely when payment was made by Astra to Musst following judgment in the Musst v Astra case.

In view of all the intervening events described above, I do not accept that it had any substantial value. It is not sufficient just to consider the unrecovered costs including the funding costs, the ATE costs and the legal and other costs paid to solicitors and not recovered. There also has to be factored in the vast amount of risk on the part of Musst, the enormous amount of time spent in preparing disclosure, witness statements, experts, interim hearings, having a command of the documents for trial, trial itself, consequential hearings and the appeal process. There has to be factored in how complex the trial became with the numerous defences advanced on behalf of Astra, as well as the defamation cross-claim.

When all of this is taken into account, the question is whether the contribution of Matrix was greater than the sum payable to it in respect of a share of management fees. I am satisfied that it is no greater than that, bearing in mind the fact that its contribution (already less than that of Musst) came to an end at the start of November 2012 whereas the sustained contribution of Musst went on year after year until after the judgment in Matrix v Musst case. There stands to be put into the balance on the one hand the risk, expenditure, time and effort of Musst in order to collect the performance fees over numerous years and the absence of risk, expenditure, risk and effort on the part of Matrix against the historic and truncated assistance of Matrix in 2012. Although that suffices for this alternative conclusion, the position was worse in that Mr Reeves, even after acquiring the claim through MRL, instead of supporting the claim of Musst against Astra, adopted the case of Astra and took a number of steps to enhance the position of Astra at the expense Musst. Even without this last point, I assess the contribution of Matrix to the collection of the performance fees as nil or no more than negligible.