Categories:UK

Judge slams Wembley dispute’s £22m costs total

  • Print
  • Comments (10)

Readers' comments (10)

  • greenwash

    £1m on photocopying equals approximately 10m pages equals approximately 12,427 trees.

    So much for CSR.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Photocopying

    Did I read that correctly? "£1m in PHOTOCOPYING'?! That poor, poor associate.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Paper

    It could be recycled - ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Poor Management

    Why did the photocopying costs reach this much in the first place? Poor management on the part of the partner in charge is probably just one factor. It would be slightly worrying if an associate was carrying out the photcopying on this case?! No doubt a huge team of paralegals were left to get on with it and no doubt with little supervision.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Costs order

    PLC reports the 20% costs order in favour of Multiplex as being an interim costs order, with I think the main costs to be subject to further argument (and photocopying). If this is accurate, its not quite the punitive decision that's suggested.
    When I first read the report on BAILLI, I'm sure it referred to the costs issue, but it no longer does....?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Costs order

    PLC Construction reported that Mr Justice Jackson had handed down judgment requiring CBUK to pay Multiplex £6.1 million and 20% of Multiplex's costs, which were estimated to be in excess of £9 million since June 2006. We also reported that, after judgment was handed down, the judge awarded an interim costs payment of £700,000 to Multiplex ( http://dispute.practicallaw.com/4-383-5487).
    PLC intends to publish an update on the costs judgment tomorrow.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Shame

    Its a shame all MPX got was a £6.1m, where the lawyers have taken double the amount. End of the day, law is a business, and many people have benefitted from this case..many.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • yes and no

    From what i hear, there were a great number of jobs on the line at cleveland. Fighting this case and reducing the company's liability might have improved their chances of keeping their jobs - so in these circumstances, its difficult to criticise in absolute terms.

    Then again, in the present economic climate other factors may well conspire against them and I guess the obscene level of fees is a difficult thing to brush aside in the same way we might have done even a year ago, when mortgages were availabe, banks were places to keep your money safe and the City was filled with cigar smoking brats. Remember those days...!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Greed

    Yes, law may well be a business. However, every client is entitled to know that the ridiculous fees they have to pay are well spent. Poor management of the case is the reason why costs exceeds results.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Money machine

    The costs of Clifford Chance are double that of the other side. Too often these big firms take on cases and throw every resource at it in order to make as much money as possible. Clients are better of going to mid size firms where costs are lower and quality and standards are just as good (if not better).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (10)