A lawyer acting for seven former-Edward Jones advisers and adviser firm Raymond James in a High Court litigation brought by Towry has praised the judge in the case after she awarded the defendants the “most generous cost order it is possible to award”.
Towry had claimed that seven former Edward Jones advisers had unlawfully poached clients after they refused to become employees following the takeover of the firm in October 2009. It was suing the advisers and their new employer, Raymond James for close to £6m.
In a judgement handed down at the High Court earlier today (14 February), Mrs Justice Cox ruled in favour of the defendents and ordered Towry to pay £1.2m in damages.
Robert Campbell, head of litigation for Faegre Baker Daniels, said: “Towry must pay defendants all of their costs and those costs are to be paid on the indemnity basis.”
Indemnity basis is when the court considers there is something in the way the claim was conducted that, in some way, warrants a more penal cost order.
He said: “Justice Cox has awarded the most generous cost order it is possible to the defendants. Total costs for defendants are £1.2m. Towry must pay half of that within 21 days.
“Towry asked for additional time to make additional payment of 50 per cent. An additional seven days request was declined.
“It will end up paying the vast majority of the balance. It is a most generous cost order that a court could have made in defendant’s favour.”
Mr Campbell added said given that it is the most favourable possible outcome, with all claims dismissed against all defendants and all costs awarded, it must be on the top end of the legal firm’s expectations.
He said: “The reason the judge ordered the indemnity costs was because Towry chose to pursue a wrongful means conspiracy claim which, in effect, meant all defendants were potentially liable for the totality of the claim, which was £5.8m.
“In the judgment the judge expressed her surprise and dissatisfaction that it had proceeded with this element of the claim.
“There were certain things in the judgement that was striking. For instance, one senior Towry witness said they hadn’t read any of the witness statements from RJ which the judge said showed an unshakeable belief on the part of Towry for their own case, even in the face of persuasive contradictory evidence.”
