Useful appeal judgment on proportionality provides clear and practical guidance pending input from the Court of Appeal
Reynolds v One Stop Stores Limited
Norwich and Cambridge County Courts
21 September 2018
As to how to operate the test of proportionality it was appropriate at detailed assessment having initially assessed a party's bill for the judge to step back in order to go through the relevant factors in CPR rule 44.3(5) and if he came to an overall conclusion that costs were still disproportionate to go on and decide on a lesser sum which was proportionate. In this instance a 35% reduction from the level of initially assessed costs was applied in order to achieve a proportionate level. William MacKenzie and Steven Dawson review latest decision on proportionality in Reynolds v One Stop Stores Ltd (2018).
The claimant suffered a wrist injury at work and intimated a claim in November 2012. The defendant made an early admission of liability and in November 2013 offered £35,000 to settle the claim. The claimant rejected the offer and issued proceedings in July 2014. The litigation continued for the next three years and in March 2017 the claimant applied to increase the value of the claim up to £300,000.
The claimant claimed to have suffered a soft tissue injury with consequential physical impairment, chronic pain, depression and anxiety. There was expert evidence in pain management and psychiatry, and the extent of the disagreement between the experts was such that they were due to give oral evidence at the trial listed for October 2017. However, at the door of the court, the parties reached settlement in the sum of £50,000.
The detailed assessment
At the detailed assessment District Judge Reeves agreed, on request by the parties, to deal with arguments in relation to proportionality only after a line by line assessment of the incurred costs and a review of the budgeted costs.
The initial assessment produced a provisional base figure of £115,906.09. DJ Reeves did not depart from the budgeted sum, not being satisfied that there was good reason to do so under the test established in the case of Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust (2017).
Under CPR 44.3(5), costs incurred are proportionate if they bear a reasonable relationship to five factors. The relevant factors in this case were:
(a) the sums in issue in the proceedings;
(c) the complexity of the litigation; and
(d) any additional work generated by the conduct of the paying party.
In his assessment of proportionality the judge took account of the following features of the case:
The claim was originally pleaded at £50,000, with the defendant having made an offer to settle at £35,000. The claimant sought to increase the value to £300,000 and after that she pursued the case on that basis. Even though at one point, the claimant’s pain expert began to have second thoughts following disclosure of the defendant's surveillance evidence, the matter was primed for a full fight and the court was led to believe it was still valued up to £300,000.
The increased offer on the day of the trial and the ultimate settlement sum were much closer to the defendant's original offer than to where the claimant was putting her case, so it was the claimant's conduct that would be looked at, given that the defendant had been consistent.
Whilst the medical opinion had been divergent, the litigation itself had not been complex.
"So, I am left with a situation where the claimant has overstated their case; has increased the value of their claim; has fought it on the basis of £300,000; has had it cost budgeted having increased the value on £300,000; and then on the day of trial has accepted a much reduced figure than it was originally seeking."
He therefore revised the award of base costs to £75,000 which amounted to a further 35% reduction.
The claimant sought to challenge this decision on four grounds:
Sums in issue. The judge had erred in considering proportionality with reference to the settlement of £50,000.
Complexity. The judge had erred in finding the litigation not complex, having regard to the multiple experts.
Conduct. The judge had wrongly failed to recognise that the litigation had been prolonged by the conduct of the defendant, because it only substantially increased its offer at the door of the court.
Approach. The judge had wrongly treated the issue of proportionality “as a discretionary one rather than an issue of judgment”; had failed to “attribute appropriate weight” to each of the five factors in CPR 44.3(5); and had reduced the award on an arbitrary basis.
Findings on appeal
Dismissing the claimant's appeal HHJ Auerbach made the following findings:
Sums in issue. The judge should form an objectively reasonable view of the sums in issue. There is no rigid way of approaching this, but it should be based on all of the material available when the assessment is conducted. "Only if they draw on irrelevant considerations, omit relevant considerations, or otherwise reach a perverse view, should an appellate judge intervene."
If the judge had only taken into account the settlement figure, that would have been wrong, but he had not done that. He was aware of the divergent medical evidence, the credibility issues and the offers that had been made. According, ground 1 failed.
Complexity. "The court should therefore consider [complexity] by reference to whether the litigation was complex, in ways that could reasonably be expected to have an impact on costs levels." The claimant had argued that the features of the medical evidence in this case – the changing view of one expert and the extent of the disagreement between the parties – had made the litigation complex. In rejecting this argument, the judge had been aware of these features, and in determining that they did not make the litigation complex he had reached a reasoned view, again based on all the issues. Ground 2 was also dismissed.
Conduct. The claimant argued the increase of £15,000 in the defendant’s earlier offer was significant both as a percentage and on a financial basis. HHJ Auerbach dismissed this ground too: the judge had not found the defendant's conduct unreasonable in the context of all the circumstances, including the claimant’s overall approach to the litigation.
Approach. The judge had not erred in considering proportionality at the end of the assessment. He had properly considered the relevant factors in CPR 44.3(5) and had explained how they interacted and fed into his decision.He "was not bound… to apply some mathematical formula or algorithm, to arrive at the final costs figure" and the relevant question on appeal was "whether the figure he arrived at - £75,000 – was consistent with the evaluative conclusion he had come to in his decision thus far." On this, HHJ Auerbach held:
The judge was not, as argued for by the claimant, obliged to consider the relative proportions of incurred and budgeted costs, or identify sub-amounts for each.
He had not ignored that the budgeted costs had already been significantly reduced but this in itself did not make the budgeted costs more defensible. Nor had he effectively applied a mechanistic tariff. He had properly considered whether his provisional assessment of £116,000 was proportionate to the sums in issue and his conclusion that a significantly lower figure was proportionate was "wholly consistent with DJ Reeves’ overall reasoning, and flowed from it." Ground 4 therefore also failed.
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.