Devendra Kumar
Actress Eva Green has been awarded over £1 million towards her legal costs after winning her London High Court battle against White Lantern Film over the collapse of an abandoned sci-fi film, A Patriot. The 42-year-old successfully sued the film production company, claiming she was entitled to her $1 million fee for the film despite its cancellation. The High Court ruled in her favor, finding that she was entitled to the fee and dismissing the counterclaim brought by White Lantern Film and lender SMC Speciality Finance (SMC).
The case returned to the High Court on Friday, where Ms Green’s estimated legal bill was almost £1.7 million. Her legal team, led by Edmund Cullen KC, argued that she should be awarded an interim payment of £1.4 million, which is around 83 percent of her estimated costs. However, the opposing counsel, James Goodwin, argued that the “appropriate figure” for the interim payment was £650,000, around 70 percent of Ms Green’s previous costs budget.
Mr Justice Michael Green ultimately ruled that Ms Green should be awarded an interim payment of £1.2 million, ahead of a further hearing to finalize the bills. The actress had also won a bid to have her total legal fees assessed more favorably by a specialist judge, with the judge ruling that all of her costs should be looked at on the more favorable basis of an indemnity costs order.
In written submissions, Mr Cullen argued that the opposing party had “abused the court process” by advancing and maintaining a defense and counterclaim founded on false evidence, and that the court should signal that such conduct is unacceptable by making an indemnity costs order. He further stated that the opposing party had “made that bed, they should have to lie in it.”
The opposing counsel, Mr Goodwin, disagreed, arguing that there would be little difference practically between the two assessment methods and that the costs should be determined on the usual basis. He further stated that the opposing party’s conduct had not been “outside the norm” of litigation, although he acknowledged that the court had disbelieved the opposing party’s witnesses.
In the end, Mr Justice Michael Green ruled that Ms Green’s costs should be assessed on the more favorable basis of an indemnity costs order, finding that it was not “ordinary and reasonable conduct” for witnesses to provide “knowingly false” evidence. He also ruled that Ms Green could not claim costs related to the late disclosure of some messages between her and her agent during the trial.