HT-2022-000022 - [2025] EWHC 1238 (TCC)

Agreeing a List of Issues and discussing directions for Scott Schedules. Accor seeks £15,000. Mr Esly says in his witness evidence that neither were specifically envisaged at the point at which security was originally ordered. Mr Webb KC contends that, irrespective of any particular order, it would always be envisaged that a List of Issues would form part of preparation in the run up to trial, and that the sum would be excessive for a discussion about Scott Schedules (not the preparation of Scott Schedules themselves). There is force in Mr Webb’s argument; the need for a List of Issues should readily be foreseen (by reference to the TCC Guide if not otherwise), and the sum is excessive. I will assume £5,000.

Costs of amendments to the DRD and seeking the determination of issues concerning existing disclosure issues. Mr Esly considers that £40,000 is a conservative estimate of the further work required, particularly in the light of the difficulties it says it has faced already with respect to disclosure issues. Mr Webb KC offers £20,000 as reasonable and proportionate. Insofar as there are specific disclosure inadequacies remaining which the Court is required to resolve, costs for that will be considered separately. I consider £30,000 is an appropriate sum for further (potential) debate about the DRD.

Costs of dealing with Lloyds’ existing disclosure. Mr Esly identifies the difference between 2,000 documents, originally identified by Lloyds, and well over 50,000 documents (and 330,000 pages) in fact disclosed. He calculates that even assuming only 10% of this additional disclosure remains to be reviewed (at 1 minute per page and £400 per hour) there would be a further cost of £220,000. The difficulty with this submission is that the discrepancy identified was the very basis upon which an increase in security was previously sought. It does not matter that some of the delta remains to be considered. Jefford J did not, in May 2024, consider this delta and award 90% of the additional costs she considered appropriate, on the basis that there would be a further review of security when there was 10% remaining. She uplifted the security on the basis that the entirety of the ‘new’ disclosure required dealing with. The majority of the existing disclosure has already been accounted for. The only disclosure made since Jefford J’s ordered increase in security has been the various Whatsapp/phone documents. I allow £10,000 increase in this regard.

Hosting disclosure. This is accepted by Lloyds in the sum of £185,196.

Additional costs for Accor’s existing experts. Accor claims £240,000. It says, in essence, that the original allowance within the security has been wasted either by reason of Lloyds’ change in case, the need for the experts to refamiliarise themselves given the long hiatus caused by interlocutory matters, the unnecessary ‘acceleration’ of preparation in the face of Lloyds’ unrealistic attempt to keep the original trial on track, together with the increase in the scope now required of the experts. Notwithstanding Mr Webb KC submissions to the contrary, I accept this explanation and consider that the additional sum claimed is realistic.

PTR. The additional sum claimed of £12,140 (representing the increased costs now that the PTR is listed for a day rather than half a day) is not disputed by Lloyds.

Trial. The original trial was listed for 3 weeks, and it is now 6 weeks. The claimed sum is substantially higher. Accor consider that the original £450,000 allowance should be increased by a further £450,000. Mr Webb KC argues that this is excessive and a further £300,000 is appropriate. I consider, taking a conservative view, a further £400,000 is allowable.