I'm interested in…

  • Strategy & Procedure
  • Catastrophic Injury
  • Professional Indemnity
  • Motor
  • Fraud
  • Disease
  • Liability
  • Commercial Insurance
  • Costs
  • Local Authority
  • Scotland

Jackson in Action: case law

In our regular monthly round up of cases we look at the effects of the changes to the Civil Procedure Rules under the Jackson Reforms:

Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting regime/inaccurate notice of funding: In Price v Egbert H Taylor & Co Ltd (2016) His Honour Judge Lopez, sitting in Birmingham County Court considered costs issues arising out of the appellant claimant's unsuccessful appeal for an extension of time to serve its claim form, particulars of claim, schedule of special damages and supporting medical evidence, in a personal injury claim against its employer. A point of interest is the consideration of whether, having asserted that there was a pre-1 April 2013 CFA in place, the claimant could seek to argue that QOCS applied. 16/6/16 (see update from counsel at St Johns Chambers)

Costs budgeting/claim for additional liabilities: In Various Claimants v MGN Ltd (2016) Mann J, sitting in the Chancery Division considered how the court should approach the question of proportionality when costs managing a case where the claimants claimed additional liabilities, in the shape of a success fee and ATE insurance. Held that Precedent H clearly directed that it only related to base costs and that the summary page stated that the budget should exclude success fees and ATE premiums. As Precedent H was mandated by Practice Direction 3E of the CPR it followed that when considering the costs, the exercise should not include the additional liabilities. 25/7/16

Costs budgeting/treatment of incurred costs: In EIL v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (2016) where the Judge carrying out the costs management exercise had only allowed the incurred costs claimed for a CMC (in the sum of £2,493.50) and not allowed the future costs claimed and was openly critical of the sums claimed for that phase, the costs allowed by the Judge would be treated as approved costs. On appeal to Mitting J in the Queen’s Bench Division, the court accepted that there was a risk that, in light of the Judge’s criticism at the CCMC the judge dealing with the detailed assessment might further reduce the costs that had been allowed at the CCMC. The costs of pursuing the appeal not sensibly incurred and the appeal was not a good use of the court’s resource. 15/6/16 

The following case, whilst not a relief from sanctions application per se, demonstrated the court’s application of the test in Mitchell and Denton:

Default judgment/failure to file defence on time: In Billington v Davies & Anor (2016) the defendant failed to file a defence until the day before the claimant’s application for judgment in default. In considering the defendant’s application to extend for service of the defence, Deputy Master Pickering applied the test in CPR r.3.9 and found that neither of the two reasons given for failing to file the defence on time in the first place: the defendant’s lack of funding and the lack of any without prejudice negotiations between the parties were good reasons for the delay. 28/7/16

For further information please contact Marcus Davies, Professional Support Executive on 0161 603 5146

This information is intended as a general discussion surrounding the topics covered and is for guidance purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. DWF is not responsible for any activity undertaken based on this information.