Mining group Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation has been granted its application to see the retainer between an SFO investigator and his solicitors over a £1.8m bill of costs. 

Serious Fraud Office sign

Source: Alamy

Following a half-day hearing, senior costs judge Rowley ordered SFO investigator Antony Puddick disclose his agreement with his solicitors in a £1,836,607.57 costs dispute.

For ENRC, Nicholas Bacon KC told the court there was a ‘genuine issue’ in relation to Puddick’s liability for costs to A.M. Strachan & Co. ENRC’s application sought all relevant documents underpinning the engagement terms including letters, agreements, notes of conversations, and communications, and for Puddick to prove his liability for the costs. ENRC also sought a witness statement from both Puddick and the firm ‘setting out and disclosing all relevant documents on which [Puddick] has elected to rely’.

Robin Dunne, for Puddick, described ENRC’s application as a ‘fishing expedition’ and a ‘tactical application that has no merit whatsoever’.

In written submissions, Dunne said: ‘[ENRC] is seemingly not content with bringing D3, an individual, into the underlying litigation between C, a multi billion dollar company with unlimited resources and the SFO, which would have ruined him personally, professionally and financially had he not defeated the claim. They now, through their large city solicitors and with the instruction of a leading silk, seek to derail these assessment proceedings, at huge and disproportionate cost with this application.' 

The court was provided with a privileged bundle by Puddick which contained ‘all relevant documentation as to the retainer and the indemnity principle’.

The judge gave ex tempore judgment after rising to consider his decision. Ordering that Puddick’s retainer with his solicitors is disclosed to ENRC, the judge said: ‘Practice direction 47 expects retainer documents to be attached to documents lodged with the court. The case law is clear in my view that there is no privilege to retainer documents.’

An application to appeal was dismissed. Costs were reserved.