Carenso Trading Ltd v Cinsten Investments Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Belize |
| Judge | Farnese, J. |
| Judgment Date | 02 January 2024 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Belize) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM No. CV 726 of 2018 |
CLAIM No. CV 726 of 2018
IN THE SENIOR COURTS OF BELIZE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BELIZE
Payal Ghanwani for the Claimant/Respondent
Angeline Welsh, KC and Jose M. Alpuche, for the Defendant/Applicant
Cinsten Investments Limited (Cinsten) asks that I make an extraordinary ruling to order Carenso Trading Limited (Carenso) to pay Cinsten's costs up to the date of the discontinuance of the claim. Carenso argues that there are no reasons to depart from the usual order for prescribed costs as outlined in the Supreme Court ( Civil Procedure) Rules (CPR). For the reasons outlined below, I disagree. Cinsten is entitled to their costs up to the date of the discontinuance of the claim. I find Carenso's conduct in this matter unreasonable and devised to delay and frustrate the just resolution of their claim.
CPR 37.7(7) specifies that prescribed costs are the default when a claim is discontinued unless the parties agree or the court orders otherwise. 1 Part 63 of the CPR applies where the court departs from the general rule. 2 CPR 63.6(1) outlines that the successful party is generally entitled to costs from the unsuccessful party. The central issue in this application is whether I can make an order akin to an order for costs on an indemnity basis without explicit language in the CPR permitting such an order.
I find the broad language used in CPR 64.2(1) reflects that the court has the discretion to grant costs on an indemnity basis:
Where the court has any discretion as to the amount of costs to be allowed to a party, the sum to be allowed is –
(a) the amount that the court deems to be reasonable were the work to be carried out by a legal practitioner of reasonable competence; and
(b) which appears to the court to be fair both to the person paying and the person receiving such costs.
(underline added)
CPR 64.2(1) is not limited to the types of costs expressly included in the CPR and in need of quantification such as wasted costs 3 or where the court orders only a proportion of costs be paid. 4 The court has discretion to order what it finds to be a reasonable amount of costs.
The CPR outlines what factors I must consider when deciding whether to issue a cost order:
63.6 (5) In deciding who should be liable to pay costs, the court must have regard to all the circumstances.
(6) In particular it must have regard to –
(a) the conduct of the parties both before and during the proceedings;
(b) whether a party has succeeded on particular issues, even if he has not been successful in the whole of the proceedings;
(c) whether it was reasonable for a party –
(i) to pursue a particular allegation; and/or
(ii) to raise a particular issue;
(d) the manner in which a party has pursued –
(i) his case; or
(ii) a particular allegation; or
(iii) a particular issue; and
(e) whether the claimant gave reasonable notice of intention to issue a claim.
Cinsten asks that I infer from Carenso's conduct in these proceedings that Carenso brought a hopeless case that ought not to have been brought or continued. Cinsten argues that Carenso was never willing to produce the Loan Agreement to prove their claim because the Loan Agreement they relied upon was not genuine. Moreover, parallel proceedings were brought in other jurisdictions and dismissed on every occasion. Of note, is also a 2021 award in LCIA Arbitration proceedings where the arbitrator found...
To continue reading
Request your trial