Judge slams Wembley dispute’s £22m costs total
A judge has hit out at the participants involved in a four-year dispute over the construction of Wembley Stadium after they racked up £22m in costs, including £1m on photocopying.
Australian construction company Multiplex was awarded £6.2m in damages from steel firm Cleveland Bridge following a contractual dispute over delays in the stadium’s construction.
Mr Justice Jackson said: “That level of expenditure far exceeds the sums which are seriously in dispute. Each party has thrown away golden opportunities to settle this litigation upon favourable terms.”
The lawyers on the case shared a total legal bill of £20m. Clifford Chance and Four New Square silk Roger Stewart QC are understood to have shared more than £12m in legal costs during the ;four ;years ;they represented Multiplex.
Reid ;Minty, ;which has ;now ;merged ;with McGrigors, was brought in by Cleveland for the final two years of litigation and, along with Adrian Williamson
QC of Keating Chambers, notched up £6.5m in fees.
Walker Morris and Hugh Tomlinson QC of Matrix Chambers, sidelined by Cleveland after losing a preliminary round in 2006, are thought to have billed £2m.
That said, Jackson J praised legal counsel for working “prodigiously hard” to end the dispute.
Multiplex was awarded 20 per cent of its costs for the final stage of the case, an outcome that is likely to leave both sides unsatisfied.
A source close to the matter said: “It could all kick off again. I suspect Cleveland is going to appeal.”
Readers' comments (10)
Green Spam | 6-Oct-2008 2:13 pm
greenwash
£1m on photocopying equals approximately 10m pages equals approximately 12,427 trees.
So much for CSR.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mike | 6-Oct-2008 2:13 pm
Photocopying
Did I read that correctly? "£1m in PHOTOCOPYING'?! That poor, poor associate.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anon. | 6-Oct-2008 2:14 pm
Paper
It could be recycled - ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6-Oct-2008 4:01 pm
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
Anonymous | 6-Oct-2008 4:06 pm
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
Michelle Rousell | 7-Oct-2008 11:09 am
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
Anonymous | 7-Oct-2008 4:00 pm
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
Anonymous | 8-Oct-2008 2:00 pm
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
Anonymous | 9-Oct-2008 12:00 pm
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
John | 9-Oct-2008 12:29 pm
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