A costs judge has described international firm Dentons’ conduct in litigation over disputed bills totalling more than £2 million as ‘somewhat obstructive whilst claiming in correspondence a desire to compromise’.

The application before costs judge Nagalingham was brought by biotechnology company Diagnostics.AI Limited in an ongoing dispute. The judge acknowledged that both parties ‘at various stages made genuine efforts to either settle the dispute or otherwise work collaboratively to progress the matter’.

Dentons’ ‘failure to provide any replies at all to the item by item points of dispute’ which ran to a combined 42 pages ‘was an unexpected development’. The firm’s four-page reply addressed preliminary points only, according to the judgment in Diagnostics.AI Limited v Dentons UK & Middle East LLP.

The company sought inspection of the firm’s relevant files through an order from the court. The judge said the firm’s time estimate of how long it would take to comply with the order was ‘troubling’ and the very same parts of the file ‘must have been identified to prepare the breakdowns [of costs], and one would not ordinarily expect a practice of the Defendant’s stature to keep disorganised files’.

He added: ‘Even if I were to accept the higher of the defendant’s estimated costs of inspection then I observe that those sums are dwarfed by the principal fees in dispute. The defendant is either hugely pessimistic or otherwise adopts an entirely unrealistic stance as to their anticipated costs in providing facilities for inspection.

Read more

‘The parties have been in negotiations for years at this stage, and if anything it is the claimant’s application which presents a realistic way forward. I consider the defendant’s stance and conduct to be somewhat obstructive whilst claiming in correspondence a desire to compromise.’

The judge ordered inspection and ordered the costs of the claimant’s application for inspection be paid by Dentons to be summarily assessed.