One of the issues in this case was whether the defendant, in whose favour costs were ordered, should be entitled to recover additional sums to reflect currency losses caused by the decline in the exchange rate between the Pound and the Euro since costs payments had been made.

The defendant sought to rely on the recent decision of Elkamet v Saint-Gobain, in which Arnold J held that "If one accepts, as I do, that in principle the court has power to make an order for damages or costs in a foreign currency, then it seems to me to follow as a matter of logic that the court ought to have power, if it decides to make an order in sterling, to compensate for any exchange rate loss."

However, Coulson J declined to follow that decision. Unlike in Elkamet, he did not have particular figures to consider. He also said that he was uncomfortable with the idea that an award of costs should be treated like a claim for damages: an order for costs will almost never allow the payee to recover the actual costs that have been incurred. Furthermore, he said that "I do not myself see the close analogy between ordering interest on costs, which is commonplace, and ordering exchange rate losses due to the particular time that the costs were paid, which is not. The paying party can work out in advance the additional risk created by the potential liability to pay interest on costs, but any potential liability to pay currency fluctuations is uncertain and wholly outside his control".