Rattan v UBS Ag, London Branch: ComC 12 Mar 2014


The claimant had sought an order limiting the defendant’s costs after alleged non-compliance with directions, and failing to file a costs budget.
Held: The application was rejected. The Commercial Court will firmly discourage the taking of futile and time wasting procedural points: ‘the claimant’s argument has not only increased the expense of this CMC but has also, in all probability, damaged the relationship of co-operation and trust which ought to exist between the parties’ legal representatives and which is necessary for the efficient conduct of litigation. The taking of such a point is all the more unfortunate in a case where the parties’ initial costs budgets (for a combined total in excess of andpound;2 million) are already disproportionate to the amount in dispute (the US dollar equivalent of about andpound;1.3 million), so that the parties ought to have been concentrating on ways in which the case could be conducted at more proportionate cost.’

Males J
[2014] EWHC 665 (Comm)
Civil Procedure Rules 3.9
CitedMitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .
CitedSummit Navigation Ltd and Another v Generali Romania Asigurare Reasigurare Sa Ardaf Sa and Another ComC 21-Feb-2014
The commercial court will not encourage time wasting procedural applications. Leggatt J summarised the principles that should be applied on an application for relief from sanctions: ‘i) On an application for relief from a sanction under CPR 3.9, it . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.522392