High Court Clarifies Cost Liability in Illiquidx v Altana Trade Secrets Case

In Illiquidx Limited v Altana Wealth Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 1734 (Ch), Mr Justice Rajah handed down a significant judgement on costs arising from a protracted dispute involving misuse of confidential information and trade secrets. The decision, delivered on 23 June 2025 in the Chancery Division, followed a prior liability judgement issued in February and addresses the financial consequences of partial success in multifaceted commercial litigation.

The underlying proceedings commenced in July 2020 and culminated in a finding earlier this year that Altana Wealth Limited and Brevent Advisory Limited had breached a non-disclosure agreement with Illiquidx Limited. This breach led to misuse of confidential business information, though Illiquidx’s claims for copyright infringement and joint liability were dismissed. The most recent hearing, held on 6 June 2025, concerned the allocation of legal costs incurred during the liability phase.

In considering the appropriate costs order, the court applied the standard principle under CPR Part 44: that costs follow the event. Nonetheless, the complexity of the case and the mixed success of the parties rendered a straightforward application of that rule inappropriate. The defendants sought a 61.5% reduction in any costs awarded to Illiquidx, citing the claimant’s failure on several substantial issues. Illiquidx accepted that some deduction was warranted and proposed a 10% reduction, specifically in relation to its unsuccessful claims.

Justice Rajah rejected the argument that cost determinations should be postponed until the conclusion of the quantum phase. He emphasised the importance of dealing with liability costs while the issues remained fresh, facilitating judicial efficiency and reducing the risk of further procedural complications.

Central to the court’s reasoning was an assessment of how Illiquidx had presented its case. The claimant’s approach to pleading its confidential information claims drew criticism for its persistent lack of clarity. The judge observed that much of the cost and complexity of the litigation arose from the diffuse and imprecise nature of the claims. The need for extensive disclosure, the length and breadth of trial preparation, and the inability of both parties to narrow issues were attributed to the claimant’s broad and often ambiguous articulation of its case.

Justice Rajah considered that a more targeted and concise presentation could have significantly limited the scope—and thereby the cost—of the litigation. The judgement implicitly warns of the adverse cost consequences that may flow from excessive or unclear pleadings in commercial disputes involving intellectual property or confidential material.

Having weighed the parties’ relative success and conduct, the court ordered that the defendants pay 50% of Illiquidx’s assessed costs of the liability proceedings. Interest on those costs was to run at 2% above the base rate from the date of payment to Illiquidx’s solicitors until the date of the judgement. The partial recovery reflects both the claimant’s failure on discrete claims and its litigation conduct, without depriving it entirely of the costs associated with its successful claims.

This judgement not only resolves the immediate question of costs but also reinforces the court’s expectation that parties in commercial litigation present claims with clarity and proportionality. Particularly in disputes concerning trade secrets and confidential information, the drafting and focus of pleadings can materially influence both the efficiency of proceedings and the eventual cost consequences.