IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES COMMERCIAL COURT (QBD)
Claim No. CL-2024-000487
BETWEEN:
THALASSA SHIPPING & LOGISTICS SA Claimant
— and —
KORINTHIAN MARITIME HOLDINGS LTD. Respondent / Applicant
CLAIMANT'S COSTS SUBMISSIONS AND SCHEDULE OF COSTS
Filed pursuant to the Order of Mr. Justice Ashworth dated 11 October 2024
Filed on behalf of the Claimant 14 October 2024
Prepared by:
Calderwood & Harkness LLP 45 Moorgate London EC2R 6AR
Solicitors for the Claimant Ref: SE/LO/HB/PG/TSL-KMH-ENF
PART A: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS
1. Introduction and Relief Sought
1.1 These submissions are filed on behalf of the Claimant, Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA ("TSL"), following the Order of Mr. Justice Ashworth dated 11 October 2024 dismissing the Respondent's application to set aside LCIA Award No. 224718 and granting TSL permission to file written submissions on costs. The submissions are accompanied by a detailed Schedule of Costs at Part B below.
1.2 TSL seeks the following relief:
(a) An order that Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd. ("KMH") pay TSL's costs of and occasioned by:
(i) KMH's application dated 19 August 2024 to set aside LCIA Award No. 224718 pursuant to sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the "Set-Aside Application"), which was dismissed by Mr. Justice Ashworth on 11 October 2024;
(ii) TSL's enforcement proceedings under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996, including the application for permission to enforce the Award as a judgment of this Court;
(iii) TSL's application for and maintenance of the Worldwide Freezing Order (the "WFO") granted without notice on 16 July 2024 and continued with modifications on the return date on 30 July 2024; and
(iv) TSL's third-party debt order proceedings against Meridian Trust Bank Ltd. (the "TPDO Proceedings"), including both the interim order of 5 August 2024 and the final order of 3 September 2024.
(b) An order that such costs be assessed on the indemnity basis, alternatively on the standard basis;
(c) An order for payment on account of costs in the sum of £1,497,000 (being not less than 70% of the total costs claimed in the Schedule of Costs at Part B below), to be paid within 14 days of the date of the order pursuant to CPR 44.2(8).
1.3 For the reasons developed below, TSL submits that the conduct of KMH in these proceedings — including the pursuit of a meritless set-aside application, the systematic dissipation of assets across multiple jurisdictions in the post-award period, the failure to engage with pre-action correspondence, and the obstructive conduct throughout the enforcement process — amply justifies assessment on the indemnity basis.
2. Procedural History
2.1 The procedural history is set out in full in the Chronology at Appendix 1. The following summary identifies the key events relevant to the question of costs.
The Award
2.2 On 28 June 2024, LCIA Award No. 224718 (the "Award") was issued by a tribunal chaired by Sir Malcolm Fenton-Clarke, sitting with Professor Athena Drakopoulos and Dr. Henrik Dalmqvist as co-arbitrators (the "Tribunal"). The Award was rendered unanimously.
2.3 The underlying dispute arose from charter-party agreements relating to three vessels — the M/V Aegean Fortuna, the M/V Crimson Horizon, and the M/V Volga Spirit — each governed by English law and containing London-seated LCIA arbitration clauses. The disputes concerned, in broad terms, KMH's wrongful termination of the charter-parties and its failure to make hire payments, together with claims for consequential losses suffered by TSL.
2.4 The Tribunal awarded TSL the total sum of £96,450,000 in respect of its substantive claims, together with costs of the arbitration in the sum of £12,150,000, making a grand total of £108,600,000. The Award followed a 10-day evidentiary hearing held from 11 to 22 September 2023 at the International Dispute Resolution Centre ("IDRC"), London, during which both parties had the fullest opportunity to present evidence and submissions.
TSL's Enforcement Proceedings
2.5 Following the issuance of the Award, KMH made no payment of any part of the sums due. On 8 July 2024, Calderwood & Harkness LLP wrote to Harkness Whitford & Co. (solicitors for KMH) setting out the terms of the Award and demanding payment of the full sum of £108,600,000 within 14 days, with a warning that enforcement proceedings and an application for a Worldwide Freezing Order would follow in default.
2.6 KMH failed to make any payment or to offer any reasonable proposal for satisfaction of the Award. In the absence of any constructive engagement, TSL commenced these proceedings.
2.7 On 15 July 2024, TSL filed its application under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for permission to enforce the Award as a judgment of this Court (Claim No. CL-2024-000487).
2.8 On 16 July 2024, a Worldwide Freezing Order was granted without notice by Mr. Justice Ashworth, restraining KMH from dealing with, removing from the jurisdiction, or in any way disposing of or diminishing the value of its assets worldwide up to the value of £108,600,000. The WFO was supported by evidence of a real risk of asset dissipation, including preliminary findings from Hartwell Pemberton LLP regarding post-award asset transfers.
2.9 On 30 July 2024, the WFO was continued with modifications on the return date, following a contested hearing before Mr. Justice Ashworth. KMH opposed the continuation of the WFO but its arguments were rejected. The modifications related principally to the provision for ordinary course of business expenditure and the timetable for asset disclosure.
2.10 On 2 August 2024, Mr. Justice Ashworth granted TSL permission to enforce the Award as a judgment pursuant to section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The application was not opposed by KMH.
2.11 On 5 August 2024, an interim third-party debt order was granted against Meridian Trust Bank Ltd. (50 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9EA) in respect of sums standing to the credit of KMH in accounts held at that institution.
2.12 On 3 September 2024, a final third-party debt order was made against Meridian Trust Bank Ltd. KMH opposed the making of the final order on grounds that were rejected by the Court. The sum of £18,720,000 was garnished from KMH's accounts at Meridian Trust Bank Ltd. pursuant to the order.
KMH's Set-Aside Application
2.13 On 19 August 2024, KMH filed the Set-Aside Application, seeking to set aside the Award under sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The application was supported by the witness statement of Andrei Volkov, the ultimate beneficial owner and de facto director of KMH, and was accompanied by a skeleton argument prepared by Harkness Whitford & Co. (12 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1JP; SRA No. 614823), with the partners Catherine Whitford and Richard Harkness acting.
2.14 Under section 68, KMH alleged serious irregularity in the Tribunal's procedural conduct. Under section 69, KMH sought leave to appeal on alleged points of law. TSL resisted the Set-Aside Application in its entirety.
2.15 On 11 October 2024, following a full-day hearing, Mr. Justice Ashworth dismissed the Set-Aside Application in its entirety. His Lordship made oral observations regarding the weakness of KMH's grounds, noting in particular the strength of the Tribunal's reasoning and the absence of any arguable error of law. His Lordship further observed that KMH's section 68 grounds were, in substance, a disguised appeal on the merits rather than a genuine challenge to procedural regularity.
2.16 TSL has therefore been wholly successful at every stage of these proceedings. These costs submissions follow.
3. Legal Framework for Costs
3.1 CPR Part 44.2(1) provides that the court has discretion as to whether costs are payable by one party to another, the amount of those costs, and when they are to be paid.
3.2 CPR Part 44.2(2)(a) provides that, if the court decides to make an order about costs, the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party, but the court may make a different order.
3.3 In the present case, the application of the general rule is straightforward:
(a) TSL was wholly successful in obtaining permission to enforce the Award under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996;
(b) TSL was wholly successful in obtaining the WFO on 16 July 2024 and in securing its continuation on the return date on 30 July 2024;
(c) TSL was wholly successful in obtaining both the interim and the final third-party debt order against Meridian Trust Bank Ltd., resulting in the garnishment of £18,720,000;
(d) TSL was wholly successful in resisting KMH's Set-Aside Application under sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which was dismissed in its entirety by Mr. Justice Ashworth on 11 October 2024.
3.4 KMH was wholly unsuccessful in the Set-Aside Application. It was also unsuccessful in its opposition to the continuation of the WFO and to the making of the final TPDO.
3.5 There is no issue-based or other justification for departing from the general rule in the present case. Costs should follow the event. The only question for the Court is whether costs should be assessed on the standard basis or on the indemnity basis.
4. Submissions on the Indemnity Basis
4.1 The Legal Test. 4.1.1 CPR Part 44.3(1) provides that, where the court is to assess the amount of costs, it will assess those costs either on the standard basis or on the indemnity basis.
4.1.2 The critical distinction between the two bases is set out in CPR Part 44.3(3): on the indemnity basis, the court will resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably incurred or were reasonable in amount in favour of the receiving party. By contrast, on the standard basis, any such doubt is resolved in favour of the paying party.
4.1.3 On the standard basis, costs must also be proportionate to the matters in issue (CPR 44.3(2)(a)). No requirement of proportionality applies on the indemnity basis (CPR 44.3(2)(b)).
4.1.4 The circumstances in which indemnity costs may be awarded were considered by the Court of Appeal in Excelsior Commercial & Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hammer Aspden & Johnson [2002] EWCA Civ 879, where Lord Woolf CJ held that indemnity costs are appropriate where the paying party's conduct takes the case "out of the norm". The Court emphasised that indemnity costs are not reserved for cases of moral condemnation but may be awarded wherever the circumstances warrant a departure from the standard approach.
4.1.5 Conduct falling "outside the norm" has been held to include, without limitation:
(a) The pursuit of hopeless or speculative arguments (Kiam v MGN Ltd (No. 2) [2002] EWCA Civ 66; Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 6) [2006] EWHC 816 (Comm));
(b) Unreasonable refusal to negotiate or to engage in alternative dispute resolution (Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576);
(c) Deliberate obstructive behaviour in the conduct of proceedings (Petrotrade Inc v Texaco Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 947);
(d) Making allegations of fraud or dishonesty that are not established (Digicel (St Lucia) Ltd v Cable & Wireless plc [2010] EWHC 888 (Ch));
(e) Conduct that has the effect of significantly increasing the costs incurred by the other party (Euroption Strategic Fund Ltd v Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB [2012] EWHC 749 (Comm)).
4.1.6 In the context of arbitration enforcement proceedings specifically, the Commercial Court has awarded indemnity costs where a party has pursued an unmeritorious challenge to an award while simultaneously seeking to frustrate enforcement through asset dissipation or other obstructive conduct. The policy rationale is clear: parties to London-seated arbitrations are expected to honour their awards promptly and to engage with the enforcement process constructively. A party that does neither should not expect the benefit of the standard basis of assessment.
4.2 KMH's Conduct Justifying Indemnity Costs. 4.2.1 TSL submits that KMH's conduct in these proceedings falls well outside the norm, for the reasons set out below. Each of the factors identified would, taken individually, be capable of supporting an order for indemnity costs. Taken together, they present an overwhelming case for assessment on the indemnity basis.
##### 4.2.1 Pursuit of a Meritless Set-Aside Application
4.2.2 KMH's section 68 grounds alleged "serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award" within the meaning of section 68(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996. In particular, KMH alleged that:
(a) The Tribunal failed to give KMH a fair opportunity to present its case (s. 68(2)(a));
(b) The Tribunal failed to deal with all the issues put to it (s. 68(2)(d)); and
(c) The Award was obtained through fraud or the Award or the way in which it was procured was contrary to public policy (s. 68(2)(g)).
4.2.3 These grounds were, as Mr. Justice Ashworth observed in his oral ruling, entirely without substance. The Tribunal's procedural conduct was impeccable across the entirety of a 10-day evidentiary hearing held at the IDRC, London from 11 to 22 September 2023. Both parties were represented by experienced legal teams throughout. KMH had a full opportunity to present its case, including the examination and cross-examination of factual and expert witnesses. The Tribunal considered all issues put to it and addressed each in a detailed and carefully reasoned Award running to 247 pages.
4.2.4 The allegation of fraud was unsupported by any credible evidence and was not pursued with any vigour at the hearing before Mr. Justice Ashworth. It should never have been raised.
4.2.5 In substance, KMH's section 68 grounds were a disguised appeal on the merits — a characterisation expressly acknowledged by Mr. Justice Ashworth. It is well established that section 68 is not to be used as a vehicle for re-arguing a case that has been fully ventilated before the tribunal (Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA [2005] UKHL 43; RAV Bahamas Ltd v Therapy Beach Club Inc [2021] UKPC 8). KMH's application fell squarely within this impermissible category.
4.2.6 KMH's section 69 grounds fared no better. KMH sought leave to appeal on alleged points of law arising from the Tribunal's construction of certain provisions of the charter-party agreements, including the termination clause, the hire adjustment mechanism, and the damages limitation provisions. The threshold for leave to appeal under section 69(3) is well established: the court must be satisfied that, on the basis of the findings of fact in the award, the decision of the tribunal on the question of law is "obviously wrong" or, where the question is of general public importance, "at least open to serious doubt".
4.2.7 KMH failed to satisfy either limb of this test. The Tribunal correctly applied settled principles of English contractual construction to the charter-party disputes. The points raised by KMH amounted, in reality, to disagreement with the Tribunal's factual findings and the evaluative exercise undertaken by the Tribunal in determining the quantum of TSL's losses. These are not questions of law susceptible to appeal under section 69.
4.2.8 Mr. Justice Ashworth's observations at the hearing on 11 October 2024 underscored the weakness of KMH's position. His Lordship noted, in terms, the strength of the Tribunal's reasoning and the absence of any arguable error of law. His Lordship further commented that the Set-Aside Application had the hallmarks of a party seeking to relitigate a case that it had lost, rather than raising a genuine challenge to the Award.
4.2.9 TSL submits that the pursuit of the Set-Aside Application in these circumstances was unreasonable and, of itself, justifies an order for indemnity costs. The application consumed significant judicial resources and required TSL to incur substantial costs in reviewing the arbitration record and preparing its response — costs that should not have been necessary.
4.2.10 The timing of the Set-Aside Application is also material. It was filed on 19 August 2024, at the same time that KMH was actively dissipating assets internationally (as described below). This strongly suggests that the application was brought as a tactical measure to delay and obstruct enforcement, rather than as a genuine challenge to the Award. The Court should take this into account in determining the appropriate basis of assessment.
##### 4.2.2 Asset Dissipation and Obstructive Conduct
4.2.11 KMH engaged in a sustained pattern of post-award asset dispersal across multiple jurisdictions, designed to frustrate TSL's ability to collect on the Award. The evidence before the Court, including the forensic asset tracing report prepared by Hartwell Pemberton LLP (forensic accountants, 25 Old Broad Street, London EC2N 1HN), establishes the following:
(a) In the period between the issuance of the Award on 28 June 2024 and the grant of the WFO on 16 July 2024 — a period of only 18 days — KMH and its associated entities effected transfers of assets totalling approximately USD $47 million from accounts and entities within the jurisdiction to accounts and entities in Cyprus, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and the British Virgin Islands;
(b) The transfers were made to entities controlled by the Volkov family, specifically Andrei Volkov (the ultimate beneficial owner and de facto director of KMH) and Sergei Volkov (a director of KMH and of several of the recipient entities). The corporate structure used to effect the transfers was deliberately opaque and designed to place assets beyond the reach of English enforcement proceedings;
(c) The entities used to receive and hold the transferred assets included:
(i) Dnepr Shipholding Inc. (BVI Company No. 2014876), a British Virgin Islands company with no apparent operational activity, used as a vehicle for holding vessel interests and cash reserves;
(ii) Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., a Singapore-incorporated entity used to hold charter income and vessel operating accounts in the Asia-Pacific region;
(iii) Korinthian DMCC, a Dubai Multi Commodities Centre company, used to route payments through UAE banking channels; and
(iv) Oceangate Ventures Ltd. (HE 401293), a Cypriot entity used as a holding company for certain of KMH's European assets.
(d) The transfers were effected at a time when KMH knew, or must have known, that enforcement proceedings were imminent. The demand letter from Calderwood & Harkness LLP was dated 8 July 2024 — within the period during which the transfers were taking place;
(e) The evidence suggests that the transfers were not in the ordinary course of business and served no legitimate commercial purpose. They were designed to remove assets from the reach of this Court and to frustrate enforcement of the Award.
4.2.12 This pattern of asset dissipation had the direct consequence of necessitating the ex parte WFO application, the multi-jurisdictional enforcement proceedings (in England & Wales, Cyprus, Singapore, and the UAE), and the detailed forensic asset tracing work undertaken by Hartwell Pemberton LLP. These are costs that would not have been incurred had KMH honoured the Award or, at the very least, refrained from dissipating its assets.
4.2.13 The deliberate dispersal of assets in the face of a known liability of £108,600,000 is conduct that falls far outside the norm of litigation behaviour. It is precisely the kind of conduct that justifies an order for indemnity costs, as it is calculated to increase the costs of enforcement and to frustrate the successful party's legitimate entitlement to the fruits of the Award.
##### 4.2.3 Failure to Engage with Pre-Action Correspondence
4.2.14 On 8 July 2024, Calderwood & Harkness LLP wrote to Harkness Whitford & Co. on behalf of TSL, setting out the terms of the Award and demanding payment of the full sum of £108,600,000 within 14 days. The letter warned, in clear terms, that if payment was not made within the stipulated period, TSL would:
(a) Apply to the Commercial Court for permission to enforce the Award under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996;
(b) Apply for a Worldwide Freezing Order; and
(c) Take all necessary steps to enforce the Award in any jurisdiction in which KMH held assets.
4.2.15 KMH's estimated pre-dispute net asset value was approximately USD $280 million. KMH was plainly in a position to satisfy the Award, whether by direct payment or by offering reasonable security for the sum due.
4.2.16 KMH failed to make any payment. KMH failed to offer any security. KMH's without-prejudice responses (to the extent that their content may be disclosed without waiving privilege) did not contain any reasonable proposal for payment or any constructive engagement with TSL's demands. The responses amounted, in substance, to a statement of KMH's intention to challenge the Award, without any acknowledgment of the sum due or any offer of partial payment.
4.2.17 Had KMH engaged constructively with TSL's pre-action correspondence, the costs of the enforcement proceedings — including the WFO application, the TPDO proceedings, and the multi-jurisdictional enforcement — could have been significantly reduced or avoided entirely. KMH's failure to engage is a further factor supporting assessment on the indemnity basis.
##### 4.2.4 Conduct During Proceedings
4.2.18 KMH's conduct during the course of these proceedings has been obstructive, dilatory, and designed to frustrate enforcement of the Award. In particular:
(a) KMH delayed compliance with the asset disclosure requirements of the WFO. The WFO, as continued on 30 July 2024, required KMH to provide a verified list of its worldwide assets within 14 days. KMH's disclosure was late, incomplete, and required multiple rounds of correspondence from Calderwood & Harkness LLP before it was provided in a form that was even arguably compliant with the order;
(b) KMH opposed the making of the final TPDO against Meridian Trust Bank Ltd. on grounds that were without merit and were rejected by the Court. The opposition added to TSL's costs without any legitimate justification;
(c) KMH's approach to the litigation generally has been characterised by a refusal to cooperate with the enforcement process. At every stage, KMH has sought to delay, obstruct, and frustrate TSL's legitimate entitlement to enforce the Award. The overall conduct has been, to adopt the language of Excelsior, conduct that takes the case well outside the norm.
4.3 Conclusion on Basis of Assessment. 4.3.1 The combination of the following factors takes this case well outside the norm and justifies assessment of TSL's costs on the indemnity basis:
(a) The pursuit of a hopeless set-aside application under sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, characterised by Mr. Justice Ashworth as a disguised appeal on the merits and lacking any arguable basis;
(b) The deliberate dissipation of assets across multiple jurisdictions in the immediate aftermath of the Award, designed to frustrate enforcement;
(c) The failure to engage constructively with TSL's pre-action correspondence, despite having ample assets to satisfy the Award;
(d) The obstructive and dilatory conduct throughout the enforcement proceedings, including delayed compliance with the WFO disclosure requirements and the meritless opposition to the TPDO.
4.3.2 Each of these factors would, considered individually, be sufficient to take the case outside the norm. Considered in combination, they present an overwhelming case for assessment on the indemnity basis. TSL respectfully submits that the Court should so order.
5. Payment on Account
5.1 CPR Part 44.2(8) provides:
"Where the court orders a party to pay costs subject to detailed assessment, it will order that party to pay a reasonable sum on account of costs, unless there is good reason not to do so."
5.2 The obligation to order a payment on account is thus a presumptive one: the court will order payment of a reasonable sum unless there is good reason not to do so. The burden is on the paying party to establish a good reason (Mars UK Ltd v Teknowledge Ltd [2000] FSR 138).
5.3 In Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc [2015] EWHC 566 (Comm), Christopher Clarke LJ (as he then was) held that a payment on account in the range of 65–75% of the costs claimed was appropriate where the receiving party was likely to recover a substantial proportion of its costs on assessment.
5.4 Where, as here, costs are to be assessed on the indemnity basis, the percentage ordered on account is generally at the higher end of the range, reflecting the fact that doubts as to reasonableness are resolved in favour of the receiving party and that no proportionality cross-check applies.
5.5 TSL's total costs claimed in the Schedule at Part B below amount to £2,138,580. TSL seeks a payment on account of not less than 70% of this sum, namely £1,497,006, to be rounded to £1,497,000.
5.6 There is no good reason for the Court not to order a payment on account in this sum. KMH has failed to pay any part of the balance of the Award (the sum garnished under the TPDO represents only a fraction of the total sum due). A prompt payment on account is necessary to ensure that TSL is not left out of pocket for an extended period pending detailed assessment.
5.7 TSL accordingly invites the Court to order KMH to pay the sum of £1,497,000 on account of costs within 14 days of the date of the order.
PART B: SCHEDULE OF COSTS
6. Schedule of Costs — Enforcement Proceedings in England & Wales
6.1 This Schedule sets out the costs incurred by TSL in the England & Wales enforcement proceedings (Claim No. CL-2024-000487). The costs relate exclusively to work undertaken in connection with the English proceedings and do not include costs incurred in the parallel enforcement proceedings in Cyprus (Case No. 2247/2024), Singapore (OS No. 872/2024), or the UAE (Case No. 1893/2024). Where any item of work related in part to the English proceedings and in part to the overseas proceedings, the costs have been apportioned on a reasonable basis and only the England & Wales portion is claimed.
6.1 Solicitors' Costs — Calderwood & Harkness LLP. 6.2 The solicitors acting for TSL in these proceedings are Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 45 Moorgate, London EC2R 6AR. The fee earners who have worked on this matter, together with their hourly rates and estimated hours, are set out in the table below.
6.3 The hourly rates charged are the rates actually charged to the client. They are reasonable for solicitors of the standing and experience of the fee earners concerned, having regard to the complexity and value of this matter (an award of £96,450,000 plus costs of £12,150,000) and to the guideline hourly rates for Grade A, Grade B, and Grade C fee earners in the City of London. The rates reflect the specialist nature of the work, which has required expertise in international commercial arbitration, enforcement of arbitral awards, freezing injunction practice, and third-party debt order procedures.
Table: Fee Earner Summary
6.4 The total solicitors' fees claimed for the England & Wales proceedings amount to £984,930. This figure is a subset of the total Calderwood & Harkness LLP fees billed across the entire multi-jurisdictional enforcement engagement, which stand at £3,870,000 to date (against a phase 2 fee cap of £4,200,000, excluding disbursements and local counsel fees). The costs claimed in this schedule relate to the England & Wales portion of that work only.
6.2 Breakdown by Phase / Category of Work. 6.5 The solicitors' fees are broken down by phase and category of work as follows. Detailed time narratives are available for inspection in the event of a detailed assessment.
##### 6.2.1 Section 66 Application (Permission to Enforce)
6.6 This phase of work comprised the following activities:
(a) Drafting and filing the application notice under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (filed 15 July 2024), together with the supporting evidence and exhibits, including certified copies of the Award and the arbitration agreement;
(b) Preparation of the witness statement of Nikolaos Papadimitriou (Chairman & CEO of TSL) in support of the section 66 application, including instructions, drafting, amendments, and finalisation;
(c) Preparation of a skeleton argument in support of the section 66 application;
(d) Attendance at the hearing on 2 August 2024 before Mr. Justice Ashworth, including pre-hearing preparation and post-hearing attendance notes;
(e) Post-hearing compliance and related correspondence, including the drawing of the order and service on KMH;
(f) General correspondence with the client and with Harkness Whitford & Co. in connection with this phase of the proceedings.
##### 6.2.2 Worldwide Freezing Order
6.7 This phase of work comprised the following activities:
(a) Preparation of the ex parte WFO application, including drafting of the application notice, the draft order (based on the standard Commercial Court form, adapted to the circumstances of this case), the skeleton argument, and the supporting evidence;
(b) Preparation of the witness statement of Linda Osei in support of the WFO application, exhibiting the forensic evidence of asset dissipation risk;
(c) Analysis of asset dissipation risk, drawing on preliminary findings from Hartwell Pemberton LLP (forensic accountants, 25 Old Broad Street, London EC2N 1HN), including review of the Hartwell Pemberton preliminary report and identification of the key asset movements requiring urgent injunctive relief;
(d) Preparation of the full and frank disclosure note for the ex parte hearing, identifying all material facts and matters that might militate against the grant of the WFO;
(e) Attendance at the ex parte hearing on 16 July 2024 before Mr. Justice Ashworth;
(f) Preparation for and attendance at the return date hearing on 30 July 2024, including review and response to KMH's evidence in opposition and preparation of TSL's supplemental skeleton argument;
(g) Ongoing compliance monitoring following the grant of the WFO, including correspondence with Harkness Whitford & Co. regarding KMH's asset disclosure obligations, review of KMH's (delayed and incomplete) disclosure, follow-up correspondence seeking compliance, and reporting to the client on the position;
(h) Correspondence with third-party banks and financial institutions served with the WFO.
##### 6.2.3 Third-Party Debt Order (Meridian Trust Bank Ltd.)
6.8 This phase of work comprised the following activities:
(a) Preparation and filing of the application for an interim third-party debt order pursuant to CPR Part 72 (filed 5 August 2024), including the application notice and supporting evidence;
(b) Preparation of the witness statement of Hannah Brinkley in support of the TPDO application, exhibiting evidence of the sums standing to the credit of KMH at Meridian Trust Bank Ltd.;
(c) Correspondence with Meridian Trust Bank Ltd. (50 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9EA) regarding the accounts held by KMH and the operation of the interim order;
(d) Review and response to KMH's evidence in opposition to the making of a final TPDO, including preparation of TSL's skeleton argument for the hearing;
(e) Attendance at the hearing for the final TPDO on 3 September 2024, including pre-hearing preparation;
(f) Post-hearing compliance, including liaison with Meridian Trust Bank Ltd. regarding the transfer of the garnished sum of £18,720,000, and the drawing and service of the final order.
##### 6.2.4 Resisting KMH's Set-Aside Application (ss. 68/69)
6.9 This phase of work comprised the following activities:
(a) Review and detailed analysis of KMH's Set-Aside Application (filed 19 August 2024), including the application notice, the witness statement of Andrei Volkov, the skeleton argument of Harkness Whitford & Co., and all supporting exhibits;
(b) Preparation of an internal risk assessment memorandum for the client, analysing the merits of KMH's grounds under sections 68 and 69 and advising on the strategy for opposition;
(c) Preparation and filing of TSL's respondent's notice;
(d) Preparation of TSL's skeleton argument opposing the Set-Aside Application, including detailed legal research on the applicable thresholds under sections 68 and 69 and analysis of the relevant authorities;
(e) Comprehensive review of the arbitration record from LCIA No. 224718, including the full transcript of the 10-day evidentiary hearing (September 2023), the parties' written submissions, the expert reports, and the witness statements, in order to identify and respond to each of the specific complaints raised by KMH;
(f) Preparation of a detailed response to KMH's section 68 allegations, including analysis of the procedural history of the arbitration and compilation of evidence demonstrating the Tribunal's full compliance with its procedural obligations;
(g) Preparation of a detailed response to KMH's section 69 grounds, including analysis of the legal issues raised and the Tribunal's treatment of those issues in the Award;
(h) Attendance at the hearing on 11 October 2024 before Mr. Justice Ashworth, including pre-hearing preparation and attendance notes;
(i) Post-hearing steps, including the drawing of the order and preparation of these costs submissions.
##### 6.2.5 General Case Management and Correspondence
6.10 This phase of work comprised the following activities:
(a) Correspondence with Harkness Whitford & Co. throughout the proceedings, including the pre-action demand letter of 8 July 2024, responses to KMH's set-aside threats, without prejudice correspondence regarding potential settlement, and general inter-solicitor correspondence on procedural and case management matters;
(b) Correspondence with the client, including regular reporting to Ioanna Christodoulou (General Counsel and Head of Legal Affairs at TSL), updating on developments, obtaining instructions, and providing advice;
(c) Internal strategy meetings and coordination, including coordination of the English proceedings with the parallel enforcement proceedings in Cyprus (Case No. 2247/2024), Singapore (OS No. 872/2024), and the UAE (Case No. 1893/2024);
(d) General case management, including file administration, time recording review, costs budgeting, and compliance with court directions;
(e) Preparation of bundles for each hearing and maintenance of the court file;
(f) All other work not falling within the specific phases identified above.
6.3 Expert and Advisory Fees. 6.11 TSL has engaged the following expert and advisory providers in connection with these proceedings. The amounts claimed below represent the apportioned England & Wales share of the fees incurred across the multi-jurisdictional enforcement.
6.12 The apportionment percentages reflect the fact that the forensic asset tracing work was primarily directed at supporting the English WFO and TPDO proceedings (with additional portions relating to asset identification in other jurisdictions), while the vessel valuation work was equally relevant across jurisdictions but involved a significant component of England-specific advisory work.
6.4 Disbursements. 6.13 The disbursements incurred in the England & Wales proceedings are set out below. Where disbursements related to the multi-jurisdictional enforcement generally, they have been apportioned on a reasonable basis.
6.14 The total disbursements figure of £895,150 is the England & Wales apportioned share of total disbursements of £412,000 incurred across all jurisdictions, supplemented by certain items (in particular court fees, transcript costs, and service costs) that are attributable exclusively to the English proceedings.
6.5 Summary of Costs Claimed. 6.15 The total costs claimed by TSL in respect of the England & Wales enforcement proceedings are summarised below:
6.16 TSL submits that these costs are reasonable and proportionate having regard to the value of the Award (£108,600,000), the complexity of the enforcement proceedings (including the WFO, the TPDO, and the contested set-aside application), and KMH's obstructive conduct throughout.
PART C: STATEMENT OF TRUTH
7. Statement of Truth and Certification
I, Samuel Eklund, Responsible Partner at Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 45 Moorgate, London EC2R 6AR, solicitor for the Claimant Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA, confirm as follows:
7.1 The costs set out in the Schedule of Costs at Part B above are an accurate record of the costs incurred by the Claimant in these proceedings (Claim No. CL-2024-000487). The amounts stated reflect the actual costs billed or incurred to date, together with reasonable estimates of costs incurred but not yet billed.
7.2 The hourly rates claimed for each fee earner are the rates actually charged to the client and are reasonable for solicitors of the standing and experience of the fee earners concerned, having regard to:
(a) The complexity of the matter, which involves the enforcement of a substantial LCIA arbitral award across multiple jurisdictions;
(b) The value of the matter, the Award being in the total sum of £96,450,000 plus costs of £12,150,000 (grand total £108,600,000);
(c) The specialist expertise required, including international commercial arbitration, enforcement of arbitral awards under the Arbitration Act 1996, freezing injunction practice in the Commercial Court, and third-party debt order procedures;
(d) The urgency of the work, particularly in connection with the ex parte WFO application and the TPDO proceedings, which required work outside normal business hours;
(e) The guideline hourly rates for solicitors practising in the City of London.
7.3 The hours claimed are a reasonable and proportionate reflection of the work required to conduct these proceedings, having regard to the volume of documentation (including the 247-page Award, the 10-day evidentiary hearing transcript, and the extensive forensic asset tracing reports), the number and complexity of the applications made and defended, and the obstructive conduct of KMH which materially increased the work required at every stage.
7.4 I believe that the facts stated in this document are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed: ________ Samuel Eklund Responsible Partner Calderwood & Harkness LLP 45 Moorgate London EC2R 6AR
Dated: 14 October 2024
PART D: CERTIFICATE UNDER CPR PRACTICE DIRECTION 44
8. Certificate Under CPR Practice Direction 44
I, Samuel Eklund, Responsible Partner at Calderwood & Harkness LLP, solicitor for the Claimant, hereby certify as follows:
8.1 The items of costs included in the Schedule of Costs at Part B above have not been claimed in, and will not be the subject of, any other claim for costs in these or any other proceedings.
8.2 In particular, I confirm that:
(a) The multi-jurisdictional enforcement of LCIA Award No. 224718 has been pursued in parallel in England & Wales (Claim No. CL-2024-000487), Cyprus (Case No. 2247/2024, District Court of Limassol), Singapore (OS No. 872/2024, Singapore International Commercial Court), and the UAE (Case No. 1893/2024, DIFC Courts);