Source: http://supremecosts.com/blog/
Timestamp: 2018-05-22 21:10:47
Document Index: 788958518

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36']

Blog · Supreme Costs
Proportionality Decision
A case concerning Proportionality Decision has provided positive news for the Claimant. Master Brown whilst hearing the matter of Murrells v Cambridge University NHS Foundation Trust provided the following costs assessment.
In the main action the Claimant was successful in recovering damages against the Defendant following the death of her husband. The Claimant recovered £9,650.00 plus costs. The Claimant’s Bill of Costs was prepared in two parts; Part 1 for Pre-April 2013 and Part 2 for Post-April 2013. Following assessment the total costs figure was in the sum of £94,076.88 including additional liabilities. Master Brown was asked to consider whether post-April 2013 was disproportionate.
The Defendant’s argument was for base costs to be aggregated with the additional liabilities so the total figure was disproportionate. The Master concluded the new test of proportionality was not applicable to additional liabilities.
Master Brown agreed with the decision of Master Rowley in King v Basildon & Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust… “I do not accept that additional liabilities are subject to the new test of proportionality or, even if they were, that they should be aggregated with the Claimant’s base costs for the purposes of that test.”
” To my mind, it is relevant to have particular regard to the approach to the assessment of additional liabilities under the old pre-LASPO rules. That approach is summarised at paragraphs 40 and 41 of Coventry v Lawrence [2015] A.C. 106. In short, the Court does not ask itself whether the costs of an ATE premium or a success fee are proportionate to the importance of the case and what was at stake but looks at the litigation risk. If the premium is necessarily incurred, it is proportionate and it is proportionate even in the event that it is disproportionately high when compared with the damages reasonably claimed. The same reasoning applies to a success fee claimed by solicitors or counsel: such a fee is recoverable if it is proportionate to the risk of the lawyer not being paid (using the ‘ready reckoner’ tables).”
Defendant Awarded Costs
In the matter of MARK MENARY v JOE DARNTON (2016) the Defendant awarded Costs for defending the claim. A claim was made by the claimant for personal injury and associated damages including vehicle damages following a road traffic accident. At the time of the incident the claimant was driving his motor vehicle and the defendant riding his motorcycle. The claimant alleged whilst being stationary the defendant collided into the rear of his vehicle. Throughout the defendant disputed the claim that no contact between the two vehicle had occurred.
As the claim was brought following the introduction of qualified one-way costs shifting. District Judge did not disapply
At the trial, the District Judge agreed with the defendant, no contact had been made but did not agree the claimant had been fundamental dishonesty. As a result the District Judge did not disapply the same under CPR r.44.16(1).
The defendant appealed the decision that the claimant had not acted ‘fundamentally dishonest’ and to not grant the defendant costs in this instance.
At the appeal the first point was to consider whether the claimant had been ‘fundamentally dishonest’ in pusuing the claim. The Judge seperated the distinction from the claims which from time to time are exaggerated and concealments might be dishonest, but are not ‘fundamentally dishonest’, as they did not go to the root of the claim. Second, the fundamental dishonesty was related to the claim, not the claimant. As it had been found the claim was fundamental dishonesty, then in accordance with the overriding objective, the defendant should be allowed to recover the costs incurred in defending the action which on the balance was ‘fundamentally dishonest’.
The deputy district’s decision could not stand. His finding that there had been no collision, no road traffic accident, no injuries suffered, no damage to his vehicle. Additionally, the deputy district judge had failed fully consider two vital documents; the first, a record of the claimant’s visit to a medical walk-in centre on the day of the alleged accident in which he was reported as having told staff that he had just been injured in a car crash; the second was a telephone attendance note following a conference between the claimant and his solicitor in which he also claimed to have been injured in a road traffic accident on the day in question. These alone clearly show the claim was fundamentally dishonest.
Agreed Costs Budgets
Agreed costs budgets can be amended with the approval by your opponent and the court; however the change in litigation has to be a significant development or a good reason for the amendment. In the matter of GREIG v LAUCHLAN & ANOR (2016) the Defendant requested amendment to the agreed cost budget prior to the 10 day trial as they needed to change Counsel from a junior counsel to leading Counsel. No reason was given as to why the change was sought. This change increased the future costs considerably.
The defendant applied to vary the costs budget upwards in respect of counsel’s fees for the imminent trial of the claim. The Claimant was not in agreement to approve the same and as a result the court defendant made an application to the Court requesting approval.
Sitting in the Chancery Division Richard Millett QC did not approve the increased sum of £90,000 which was a substantial increase as there had not been a significant development in the facts of the case or good reason to do so; it was purely a change in Counsel.
Changes to approved Costs Budgets can be made but where a significant development or good reason to do so:
Practice Direction 3E Para 7.6 refers;
The Government following a review of the small claims limit and consultations with various parties has now increased the small claims limit. The changes are a half-way house with regard to the limits the insurers wished to impose if they had the chance.
For ‘Whiplash’ (RTA) claims the small claims limit will be increased upwards to £5,000.00 and for all other personal injury claims an increase in the threshold of £2,000.00.
The original proposal championed by the insurance industry was to ban all whiplash-type injury claims and the small claims threshold to be raised to £5,000.00 for all personal injury claims.
The changes which still require legislation are to also include fixed tariffs to cap whiplash payments and also a ban on pre-medical offers for whiplash which had become a tactic for some insurers.
The changes will be brought in under the Prisons and Courts Bill; with some commentators predicting this will be implemented at the back end of 2018.
The changes in essence still allows individuals to pursue their own injury claims without legal representation which would fall within the revised small track limits; however this is likely to open the door for claims management companies to get a piece of the action and run the claims for individuals taking a slice of the awarded compensation as a fee.
Indemnity Based Costs
In the County Court at Stoke, Indemnity Based Costs were awarded to the Claimant following the Defendant’s late acceptance of the Claimant’s Part 36 offer in a claim brought under the road traffic accident low value personal injury protocol.
On the 3 February 2017. in the matter of Car Craft Test Centre and Martin v Trotman & Advantage Insurance Company, District Judge Etherington awarded indemnity based costs against a defendant who had accepted the Claimant’s Part 36 offer 10 months out of time; but before the scheduled trial. The Claimant’s Part 36 offer was made following disclosure of the medical evidence and before commencing proceedings.
District Judge Etherington considered the issues and awarded indemnity based costs from the date that the Part 36 offer had expired.
This is seen as a significant success for all Claimants adhering to the protocol and making sensible offers by way of Part 36 and a lesson for all Defendants to consider all offers that are made as the penalty for not doing so is a large bill to pay.