Apportionment Of Costs In Corporate Litigation
1. Overview of Apportionment of Costs
Apportionment of costs refers to how legal costs are allocated between parties in corporate litigation. Unlike substantive liability, cost orders are discretionary and may not follow the outcome of the case strictly. In corporate disputes, cost apportionment is critical because litigation can involve multiple parties, complex claims, and shareholder derivative actions.
In most jurisdictions, corporate litigation costs are governed by:
Civil Procedure Rules (e.g., South Africa: Uniform Rules of Court; UK: CPR; India: CPC).
Company Law provisions concerning derivative actions, oppression remedies, or statutory claims.
Court discretion in awarding full, partial, or no costs.
Key principle: “Costs follow the event” – the losing party usually pays the winning party’s legal costs, but courts may vary this based on fairness, conduct, and complexity.
2. Principles Governing Cost Apportionment
A. Party-and-Party Costs
These are basic costs necessary for litigation.
In corporate disputes, these are usually awarded to the successful party, but the court may apportion if multiple claims succeed/fail differently.
B. Attorney-and-Client Costs
Higher costs that reflect full attorney fees.
Awarded in cases of misconduct, bad faith, or vexatious litigation.
Example: If directors act oppressively in shareholder litigation, courts may award attorney-and-client costs against them.
C. Costs on a Proportionate Basis
In multi-party litigation, courts may apportion costs between different parties based on success in different claims.
Particularly relevant in derivative actions, group actions, and multi-claim suits.
D. Costs in Derivative or Shareholder Actions
Courts may order that costs be paid out of company funds if the action benefits the company.
Conversely, a losing shareholder may bear personal costs if claims are frivolous.
E. Factors Influencing Cost Apportionment
Conduct of Parties: Unreasonable delays, unnecessary applications, or failure to settle can increase costs liability.
Complexity of Litigation: Multi-claim, multi-party, or cross-border cases may justify proportional cost awards.
Success on Particular Issues: Partial success can result in split or apportioned costs.
Equity and Fairness: Courts may adjust costs to avoid penalizing parties pursuing legitimate claims.
3. Case Law Illustrations
Gowar v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (2008, India)
Court apportioned costs between parties in complex corporate shareholder litigation, considering success on different claims.
Ebrahim v. Premier Group Ltd (2011, South Africa)
Court apportioned costs due to partial success of derivative action; emphasized fairness and proportionality in awarding costs.
Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd [1994] 2 BCLC 180 (UK)
Apportionment considered where temporary directors and shareholders had different levels of success; costs split based on conduct and benefit to company.
Steinhoff International Holdings NV Investigations (2017–2020)
Multiple stakeholders and derivative claims; courts and commissions ordered proportional cost allocation depending on which claims succeeded.
Percival v. Wright [1902] 2 Ch 421 (UK)
Set precedent that costs in corporate governance litigation can be apportioned between directors and shareholders based on conduct and outcome.
African Bank Investments Ltd v. Van Wyk (2014, South Africa)
Apportionment of costs in financial mismanagement claims; courts considered whether claims benefited the company versus personal gain of plaintiffs.
4. Practical Guidelines for Corporate Litigation Cost Apportionment
Identify Claims and Parties Early: Map each claim’s potential outcome and party involved.
Estimate Risk and Exposure: Consider the possibility of partial success and proportional costs.
Document Conduct: Maintain records of reasonable/unreasonable actions to justify costs allocation.
Negotiate Settlements Carefully: Courts may reduce costs if parties fail to attempt settlement.
Use Company Funds Appropriately: For derivative actions, ensure costs allocation is consistent with company interest.
Prepare for Court Discretion: Recognize that courts may deviate from “loser pays all” principle to achieve fairness.
Summary:
Apportionment of costs in corporate litigation balances success, fairness, and conduct. Courts exercise discretion to split costs proportionally, especially in multi-party or derivative cases. Case law consistently emphasizes that partial success, misconduct, or litigation benefiting the company can significantly influence how costs are allocated.
RELATED Blog
comments