Re Costs: Mövenpick Holding AG v. Exxon Mobil Corporation , 2013 FCA 6
The case was dismissed and the respondent, Exxon, was awarded costs. However parties were unable to reach an agreement and brought the matter to the Appeal Court. The court asked Exxon to file a bill of costs. The first issue on the appeal was if the fees should be charged at the mid-range or high range of Tariff B. Justice Harlington in this regard stated that the case was not very complicated and the parties involve were sophisticated and they decided to spend enormous amount of time and money. “They were free to agree between themselves that the successful party should receive enhanced costs. They did not.” As such, the court ordered a mid-range repayment.
Movenpick also complained about an existence of a second counsel through the cross-examination of its own affiant. The court of appeal agreed and found the existence of the second counsel unnecessary and disallowed the second counsel’s fee.
Movenpick also objected to repayment of the Exxon’s expert witness fees. The Court of Appeal said, although the expert witness testimonies did not affect the outcome of the case, Exxon hired the experts in response to the expert evidence filed by the Applicant. As a result the court stated they are entitled to the repayment of fees.
By: Asrin Jawaheri