CA-2025-001239 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1106

The following day, Saipem and Samsung’s solicitors, Mayer Brown, served two tables summarising a number of invoices rendered by them and by Alvarez & Marsal to Saipem and Samsung, together with zip files containing copies of those invoices.

The entries in the table relating to Mayer Brown’s invoices each broke down the total amount into Mayer Brown’s own “profit costs” and disbursements. No further detail was given in the table in relation to the breakdown of Mayer Brown’s profit costs. The majority of the invoices provided did not contain any additional information, but simply referred to the provision of “Professional services” in connection with “Project Oil” during a specified period and set out the amounts payable. However, a few of the invoices provided did have attached a narrative description of tasks performed by individual fee-earners, together with the time for each item and a “Timekeeper summary” which set out the charging rates for each named individual and the resultant charges. The hourly charging rates varied between the individuals and between invoices, some invoices being in sterling and some in US dollars. The highest sterling rate shown was £1,096 per hour and the highest dollar rate was $1,372.75 per hour.

The majority of Mayer Brown’s disbursements were fees paid to counsel. The Mayer Brown invoices to Saipem and Samsung identified the counsel instructed, and the amounts paid to them in the relevant period. For all but one of the invoices there was no description of the services provided, no fee notes were attached to support the amounts claimed and there was no indication of the hourly rates charged by counsel for advice.

The only exception was the invoice rendered to Samsung for the period 29 April 2025 to 28 May 2025. This annexed some of counsel’s fee notes – albeit heavily redacted to exclude any reference to the fees for advice. The amounts disclosed related to some of the fees for the sanction hearing and for the appeal. Mr Thornton KC charged a total of £92,400 for preparing and attending the sanction hearing (including refreshers) and charged a further £1,800 for “work on judgment”. There was no indication of Mr Colclough’s brief fee for the sanction hearing, but he charged daily refreshers of £7,200 and reviewed the judgment and drafted email advice with Mr Smith KC (who was not instructed at the hearing and who charged £7,400 separately for doing so). Mr Thornton KC’s brief fee for the appeal was shown as £125,000 and Mr Colclough’s was £80,000. In total, the amount for which fee notes were provided was £241,080 – which was less than 25% of the total claimed.

The table in relation to Alvarez & Marsal’s invoices broke down the amounts invoiced into three columns - time costs, “outlays” and expenses. The “workstream” for six of the eight invoices rendered to each of Saipem and Samsung was given as “Financial Advisory”. The “workstream” for the remaining two invoices rendered to each of Saipem and Samsung was given as “Expert Evidence”.

The invoices in the attached file provided little further detail. The invoices for the “Financial Advisory” workstream referred to the provision of “Consulting and advisory services” between specified dates pursuant to an “Engagement Letter” dated 7 November 2024. The invoices for the “Expert Evidence” workstream referred to the provision of “Special Services Rendered” between specified dates pursuant to an “Engagement Letter” dated 24 March [2025]. Neither Engagement Letter was provided.

In total, the amounts claimed in respect of solicitors, counsel and financial advisers were as follows,