Invenia Technical Computing Corporation & Invenia Labs Limited vs Matthew Hudson

This case involved an application by Matthew Hudson, the Applicant, for a payment on account of costs pursuant to CPR r 44.2(8). The Respondents were Invenia Technical Computing Corporation and Invenia Labs Limited, collectively referred to as Invenia.

TLDR:

• Matthew Hudson applied for a payment on account of costs.
• The application related to costs incurred in responding to Invenia's application to vary an electronic imaging order.
• The court examined the reasonableness and credibility of the costs claimed.
• The court denied the payment on account, leaving the matter for detailed assessment.
• Invenia was awarded costs for a separate extension of time application.

The First Respondent, Invenia Technical Computing Corporation, is a Canadian company that designed and developed software to optimize electricity grids. The Second Respondent, Invenia Labs Limited, is its wholly-owned English subsidiary, providing research and development services. The Applicant, Matthew Hudson, is the former CEO and a director of both Respondents.

In 2022, following an internal investigation, Invenia concluded that Hudson had committed various acts of dishonesty as CEO, leading to his employment termination and resignation from directorships. Invenia initiated civil proceedings against him for breach of fiduciary duty in December 2022. Hudson denied all allegations.

On 15 December 2022, Invenia sought an electronic imaging order (EIO) to preserve evidence. Cotter J granted the application, finding a strong prima facie case against Hudson and a real possibility of evidence destruction. The EIO required Hudson to provide access to his electronic devices for imaging.

Invenia's subsequent application on 21 June 2023 sought to vary the EIO to return two laptops to them instead of Hudson. Hudson responded extensively, claiming costs of around £407,900, arguing that his consultancy work at £800 per hour was disrupted.

Invenia contested the claimed costs, arguing they were exaggerated and unsupported by credible evidence. They suggested a maximum recovery of £1,900 based on the default rate for litigants in person.

The court found Hudson's claimed costs lacked credibility and were disproportionate to the nature of the application. The judge declined to order a payment on account, leaving the matter for detailed assessment. The court also awarded Invenia costs for their January 2024 extension of time application, which Hudson had unreasonably opposed.

Legal representatives: Ram Lakshman (instructed by Mishcon De Reya LLP) for the Respondents

Judicial Panel: Mr. Justice Julian Knowles

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1481 (KB)