Having made findings at trial that the claimant had exaggerated his personal injury claim, specifically in respect of loss of earnings, Mr Justice Farby had to determine if, and to what extent, this should be reflected in the award of costs.
About Toby Moreton
This author has yet to write their bio.Meanwhile lets just say that we are proud Toby Moreton contributed a whooping 465 entries.
Entries by Toby Moreton
Master Brown (costs judge) declined to award pre judgment interest on the cost of a loan which the Claimant had taken out to fund the expense of an expert medical report in this clinical negligence case.
The Master rejected the notion that the Court in Jeffrey Jones and others v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and others  EWCA Civ 363 had intended to set a general rule that an award of interest on costs should be made in respect of the period before judgment and respectfully agreed with Dingemans J in Schumann and Anor v Veale Wasbrough  EWHC 4070 QB that not only was such an award not the general rule in ordinary litigation and but that it was undesirable that there should be such a general rule.
The topic of inter fee earner discussions arises in most detailed assessments. Many paying parties argue that they are not allowed under almost any circumstances and, historically, these costs are, in most cases, disallowed on assessment, irrespective of whether it led to an ultimate saving in costs by enabling effective delegation of work to lower grade fee earners.
The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of both Master Rowley (costs judge) and Jay J on appeal to disallow additional liabilities in the form of success fees (for both solicitors and counsel) and ATE premium claimed in the sum of £1,078,972.72.
In November last year the Court of Appeal decided that fixed costs continued to apply in a case which started under the RTA Protocol and was settled by way of the acceptance of a Part 36 Offer which referred to CPR 36.13 and offered to pay “costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed”.
As a consequence of that decision the Appellant (original defendant) was awarded her costs of the appeal.
The question to be determined now was whether the court had jurisdiction to set off those costs against the costs owed to the Respondent (original claimant) in the substantive claim.
Another decision on indemnity costs arising from a failure to mediate.
The Defendant succeeded in striking out parts of the claim against it but failed in two other applications.
As a result, costs orders were made in both directions.
Summary assessment was considered inappropriate due both to the “difficult exercise in assessment” of the Defendant’s costs and the amount sought by the Claimant.
The Claimant therefore sought a payment on account under CPR 44.2(8).
Having beaten his own offer at trial the Claimant was awarded indemnity costs under CPR 36.17(4)(b) from 21 days after the date on which it was made.
The Claimant also claimed indemnity costs on a broader basis and for a longer period by reason of the Defendant’s failure to engage in settlement discussions. or contemplate any form of ADR.
This Court of Appeal decision examined the guidance in M v Croydon London Borough Council  EWCA Civ 595 concerning the approach to costs where a judicial review claim is compromised and withdrawn before the final hearing.
Prior to commencement of these public interest judicial review proceedings the parties had agreed that they recoverable costs on each side would be limited to the sum of £3,000. The proceedings were ultimately dismissed and the Appellant was ordered to pay 67% of the SSHD’s capped costs i.e. £2,000.
The Appellant appealed the substantive decision, unsuccessfully, to the Court of Appeal.
The SSHD cross appealed the order for costs on grounds that the judge erred in law by applying the reduction of 33% to the capped rather than the “much higher” actual costs of the SSHD, when calculating the amount of costs to be paid.