Case No: HQ09X01231
Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3100 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 29/11/2010
Before :

HON MR JUSTICE JACK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	(1) TULLETT PREBON PLC
(2) TULLETT PREBON GROUP LIMITED
(3) TULLETT PREBON (UK) LIMITED

Claimants	
	- and -		
	(1) BGC BROKERS L.P.
(2) BGC BROKERS GP LIMITED
(3) ANTHONY NEIL VERRIER
(4) SHAUN DAVID CARL EDGAR LYNN
(5) JAMES ROBERT HALL
(6) ROBERT LESLIE SULLY
(7) PAUL JAMES BISHOP
(8) STEVEN HARRY HARKINS
(9) MARK ANDREW YEXLEY
(10) JAMES VINCENT BOWDITCH
(11) KEVIN CHARLES MAURICE COHEN
(12) PELHAM ASHLEY TEMPLE
(13) JAMES TERENCE WILKES
(14) GAVIN DAVID MATTHEWS

Defendants	
	- and -		
	BGC BROKERS L.P.	Part 20 Claimant	
	- and -		
	(1) TULLETT PREBON PLC
(2) TULLETT PREBON GROUP LIMITED
(3) TULLETT PREBON (UK) LIMITED

Part 20 Defendants
	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Daniel Oudkerk QC (instructed by Rosenblatt) for the Claimants
Mr Jeremy Lewis (instructed by Berwin Leighton Paisner) for the Defendants

Hearing date: 17 November 2010

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Ruling on costs relating to the desk heads/confidentiality club application

Mr Justice Jack : 
1.	On 17 November I allowed the application of Tullett that named desk heads should be added to the confidentiality club for the purpose of disclosure of certain figures. Tullett asked for their costs in the sum of £10,865. I directed that submissions as to costs should be provided in writing. That has been done.
2.	 BGC accept that as a matter of principle Tullett should have their costs. It is said that the figure asked for is disproportionate to the issue – said to be a simple one, and that it was reasonable for BGC to require an explanation from Tullett why the addition was required, which did not occur until 1 November. Tullett’s charge for the letter of that date is £765 and that is where their charges begin.
3.	I do not think that the matter was straightforward. It required an examination of the issues in the damages assessment and how the evidence of desk heads could contribute. When the point was identified, the answer was not particularly difficult. But the journey was not straightforward. Indeed, BGC’s opposition suggests that the matter was not straightforward. I do not consider that Tullett’s overall charge is disproportionate. No point is made as to any individual figure. I accept that an argument can be made for making the £765 for the letter costs in the case. But in the context of this litigation I consider that an unnecessary complication. I assess the costs payable by BGC at £10,865