The Court of Appeal has ordered Framus Limited to pay the costs of the respondents who were separately represented, following its earlier decision to dismiss the company’s appeal because of inordinate and inexcusable delay.
In a judgment delivered on 2 August 2024, the court ruled on the outstanding costs question. It said the respondents had been entirely successful and were entitled to their costs under the general rule in section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. The costs are to include reserved costs, the costs of submissions and a certificate for Senior Counsel for each separate legal team, either as agreed or as assessed if the parties cannot agree.
The first to fifth respondents, who were jointly represented, are to receive one set of costs. The sixth, seventh and eighth respondents are each to receive one set. The costs orders are against Framus Limited, the first named appellant. The court made no order for costs in favour of Framus Limited and refused its application for costs.
The judgment concerned costs only. The substantive appeal had been decided on 10 November 2023. The court then found that the respondents had established Framus Limited’s inordinate and inexcusable delay, dismissed its appeal under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, and granted the respondents’ requested reliefs insofar as they related to Framus Limited. The appeals of Amantiss Enterprises Limited and Wilbury Limited had already been struck out by a Supreme Court order effective from 9 July 2014.
Framus Limited had asked for no order as to costs, or alternatively for costs against the respondents. Its written submissions advanced allegations including judicial failures under EU law and the Bangalore Principles, misconduct, and bias. The Court of Appeal said there was no evidence that the respondents caused or acquiesced in the delays. It noted that the November 2023 judgment had rejected complaints of inappropriate conduct by the respondents. The costs judgment described the allegations made in support of the application as unsupported, unsubstantiated or irrelevant, and found no basis to depart from the usual costs rule.
The costs hearing took place on 7 May 2024. No one appeared in court for Framus Limited, although its solicitors remained on record and had filed written submissions. Seamus Maye followed the hearing by video link but, because the company was not represented in court by a solicitor or counsel, the court said he had no right of audience.