{ "docId": "019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-edd4b4264c1a", "docSlug": "38055c6246e1", "documentTitle": "BP plc (BP)", "authorId": "23_Bluebell_Capital", "authorName": "Giuseppe Bivona and Marco Taricco", "documentKindSlug": "shareholder-letter", "documentKindLabel": "Shareholder letter", "sourceTypeSlug": "activist_investor", "sourceTypeLabel": "Activist investor", "presentationDate": "2024-04-18 00:00:00", "orientation": "portrait", "aspectRatio": 0.7074423, "pageNumber": 43, "pageCount": 43, "prevPage": 42, "nextPage": null, "slideType": "appendix_disclosure", "function": "cite_precedent", "density": "dense", "nDataPoints": 10, "notes": "This is page 43 of a Bluebell Capital Partners document, reproducing a legal judgment or court order transcript.", "elementsJson": [ "paragraph" ], "metadataConfidence": 0.9, "imagePath": null, "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-edd4b4264c1a/43", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-edd4b4264c1a", "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-edd4b4264c1a.json", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-edd4b4264c1a#slide-43", "components": [ { "bbox": { "h": 0.035, "w": 0.23, "x": 0.385, "y": 0.912 }, "kind": "disclaimer", "text": "Bluebell Capital Partners Limited\n2 Eaton Gate, London SW1W 9BJ\nTel: +44 20 3826 0100", "attrs": null, "subkind": "disclaimer", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "2edfbcd3-b3ed-46ae-bac3-9b7d6a0858b1", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.018, "w": 0.265, "x": 0.585, "y": 0.042 }, "kind": "image", "text": "BLUEBELL CAPITAL PARTNERS", "attrs": null, "subkind": "logo", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "ee1ab652-f54f-42f5-af28-26b4de923360", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.078, "w": 0.652, "x": 0.198, "y": 0.092 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "resistance do stand as detailed grounds and all time periods are abridged. (6) The claim for judicial review is allowed. (7) The non-material amendment (reference DM/23/03147/NMA) made by the Council on 7th November 2023 is quashed. (8) The Council do pay Mr Galloway's costs of the proceedings summarily assessed in the sum of £9,000.", "attrs": null, "subkind": "description", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "ac742a56-6e64-42c1-b180-804e22ce3920", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.0292, "w": 0.0702, "x": 0.0148, "y": 0.0185 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "96. The only contested issue in all this was the quantum of costs. Mr Barrett accepted that there should be costs orders, assessed by me, but asked me to assess the Council's costs liability at £22,380.21 (50% of Mr Galloway's costs of £44,760.42) and £5,000 (against £9,670.80 claimed). Mr Harwood KC submitted that no costs reduction should take the main judicial review costs below the cap of £35,000, and that the whole of £9,670.80 should be awarded for the second judicial review. I arrived at £32,000 for the main judicial review on the basis of an overall 25% reduction in Mr Galloway's costs, where I am not awarding costs on an indemnity basis. True, the evidence and materials were relevant to the winning line of analysis. True, this would always have been a one-day substantive hearing. But the first of two main lines of argument failed, and it failed for two independent reasons (§§62-63 above). As to the second judicial review, these are reasonably-apportioned costs which were entirely avoidable. The Council should have embraced the amended grounds (§8 above). It provoked the costs of Mr Galloway's Leading Counsel, and the partner at his firm of solicitors; and the £770 continuation fee (Judicial Review Guide 2023 p.189). The modest broad-brush reduction down to £9,000 is because I am not awarding costs on an indemnity basis.", "attrs": null, "subkind": "description", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "e2ee1542-8752-4d87-a69b-519fbbdec5f9", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": null, "kind": "quote", "text": "The claim for judicial review is allowed. (7) The non-material amendment (reference DM/23/03147/NMA) made by the Council on 7th November 2023 is quashed. (8) The Council do pay Mr Galloway’s costs of the proceedings summarily assessed in the sum of £9,000.", "attrs": null, "subkind": null, "toolName": "Authority citation", "toolSlug": "authority-citation", "confidence": null, "componentId": "019dd952-f5d4-752d-aadc-0e06d5c3edc5", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null } ], "metrics": [], "tools": [], "frameworks": [], "arcBeats": [ { "to": 43, "from": 21, "beatId": "fc18fef9-62e5-405f-9ec2-7b3c91f3cc6f", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Impact & Next Steps", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-impact-next-steps", "evidence": "The document concludes by discussing the implications of the objections and the company's position.", "position": 3, "confidence": 0.8, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "loops": [ { "to": 43, "from": 21, "name": "Cost Of Inaction", "slug": "27-cost-of-inaction", "bestFor": "Urgent budget requests, compliance, risk mitigation", "matchId": "579f9dcb-b4fb-4497-b71f-3ffe88fb7203", "evidence": "The document discusses the implications of the objections and the company's position.", "position": 2, "objective": "What are the implications of not addressing the concerns and objections?", "structure": "The Status Quo -> The Hidden Costs Accumulating -> The Future State of Inaction -> The Tipping Point", "confidence": 0.6, "description": "Quantify what happens if the audience does nothing" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }