Costs

The Technology and Construction Court dismissed an application by the claimants, Caribbean property developer Harlequin and its operator, to vary an order for security for costs to take account of the claimants’ increased disbursements. It ruled that it had no power to do so where the parties had, following the court’s earlier judgment, amended an after-the-event (ATE) policy, which the claimants had offered as security, and had agreed to its terms. It would be wrong to establish a precedent that, if one part of the preparation exercise costed the claimants more than they expected, the defendant should be penalised by having the level of its own security reduced. Further, disclosure was ordered where the administration of justice, and the need to dispose fairly of the issues in the present highly contentious case, outweighed any public interest in the withholding certain documents generated by a Serious Fraud Office investigation.