The LIA’s claim against Goldman Sachs relates to nine financial derivative transactions into which it entered with the bank between January and April 2008. The LIA paid upfront premiums to Goldman Sachs to enter into the disputed trades, which expired as worthless in 2011.

Lack of experience

The LIA, represented by Enyo Law’s Simon Twigden, claims the bank, represented by Herbert Smith Freehills partner Damien Byrne Hill, exploited its inexperience in dealing with derivative instruments.

Forced to amend pleadings

The LIA recently sought a costs order against Goldman Sachs of £70,000 after the bank abandoned a challenge, which forced Enyo to amend its pleadings. A further order was made for the bank to respond to the LIA's request for further information.

The ‘bulk’ of the costs

Presiding over the hearing on 3 May, Mrs Justice Rose held: 'Despite that lack of clarity in the correspondence, that does not, in my judgment, persuade me that the LIA should not get at least the bulk of the costs thrown away by Goldman Sachs raising and then abandoning the point about lack of authority. It is a strong thing to plead an allegation, in effect, against a firm of solicitors that they have commenced a major piece of litigation without making sure that they are properly authorised by their client to do so.'

Mrs Justice Rose ordered Goldman Sachs to pay £63,000 in costs to the LIA. The full trial is listed to commence on 13 June for seven weeks.

Source: Legal Business