In accordance with the terms of RDC 23.69(3) and 23.76 and in the light of the principles enunciated in the English Court of Appeal decision in Isah, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 268 at paras 37-44, the assessment of these costs were most economically and efficiently determined by the Judge who made the WWFO on paper and it was unnecessary to hold a physical hearing as the parties had had the opportunity to address the Court on paper on the appropriate level of costs to be awarded. There was inevitably a measure of duplication in the engagement of two firms of lawyers for the WWFO and the engagement of lawyers not involved in the Arbitration would have meant additional work in getting up to speed on the background facts leading to the Award and the need for a WWFO.

The hourly rates were not properly the subject of criticism in a case of this magnitude.