Court of Appeal overturns costs judgment in family business dispute

Background of the Case

The case of Rollerteam Ltd vs Tariq Siddiqi involved a complex legal battle over costs related to a family business dispute concerning the Sherlock Holmes museum in Baker Street, London. The Respondent, Tariq Siddiqi, was involved as a supporter and adviser to one faction of the family, while the Appellant, Rollerteam Ltd, was one of the defendants in the original proceedings.

Initial Proceedings

The initial proceedings began when Siddiqi commenced legal action against multiple defendants, claiming damages of over £4 million for alleged offences including blackmail, harassment, and libel. These claims were later expanded to include conspiracy to injure, wrongful interference, breach of confidence, and interference with Article 8 rights. However, the court dismissed most of Siddiqi's claims, granting summary judgment for several defendants and ordering Siddiqi to pay their costs.

Costs Assessment and Dispute

Following the initial judgment, the defendants, including Rollerteam Ltd, were entitled to recover their legal costs. Rollerteam Ltd submitted a bill of costs amounting to £75,228.43, which was contested by Siddiqi. The costs judge, Costs Judge Rowley, struck out Rollerteam Ltd's bill of costs, assessing the costs at zero due to non-compliance with a previous unless order.

Unless Order and Compliance Issues

The unless order required Rollerteam Ltd to submit a revised bill of costs that clearly indicated the proportion of work done for its benefit, separate from other defendants. Rollerteam Ltd argued that the work was done for all defendants collectively, making it unnecessary to apportion costs specifically. However, the costs judge found this approach insufficient, leading to the striking out of the bill.

Appeal and Judgment

Rollerteam Ltd appealed the decision, arguing that the unless order had been complied with by stating that all work was done for the benefit of all defendants, with a 10% reduction for work specific to the harassment claim against the first defendant. The High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Rajah, found that the unless order had indeed been complied with, as the required information was provided in the revised bill of costs.

Legal Principles and Analysis

Mr Justice Rajah highlighted the importance of clarity in unless orders and the need for realistic assessments of costs. The court found that the costs judge's reasoning was flawed, as the bill of costs was not unrealistic given the collective nature of the legal representation and the joint objectives of the defendants.

Conclusion of the Appeal

The appeal was allowed, overturning the previous costs judgment. The court emphasised that costs incurred for the joint benefit of all defendants should be recoverable, and the approach taken by Rollerteam Ltd in their revised bill was deemed appropriate.

Implications for Legal Practitioners

This case underscores the importance of precise compliance with court orders and the challenges of apportioning costs in cases with multiple defendants. Legal practitioners should ensure clarity and accuracy in cost assessments to avoid similar disputes.

Learn More

For more information on shareholder law and related disputes, see BeCivil's guide to Shareholder Law.

Copyright & permissions