In my long career, I have undertaken many cases, in diverse areas of law. I include a sample of the more interesting cases below:
Tabbitt v Clark Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2023] EWCA Civ 744 28 Jun 2023
Summary: A judge had been entitled to refuse a claimant’s application to make an order preserving the existing rules as to the enforcement of a costs order under CPR r.44.14. The claimant had been concerned that the existing qualified one-way costs shifting regime might be amended to permit enforcement of costs on a retrospective basis. However, the responsibility for making any changes lay with the Civil Procedure Rules Committee and the judge was therefore entitled to leave the matter to the committee. In the event, the claim was unaffected by the changes made as the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023 r.24 only applied to claims where proceedings had been issued on or after 6 April 2023.
Excalibur and Keswick Groundworks Ltd v McDonald Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2023] EWCA Civ 18 17 Jan 2023
Summary: It was not appropriate to remove qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) protection from a claimant who had discontinued his personal injury claim at the last minute in the light of inconsistencies in his case or to set aside his notices of discontinuance where there was no evidence of abuse of process, dishonesty, or egregious conduct. Powerful reasons were required to set aside such notices or to remove a personal injury claimant’s substantive right to the protection of the QOCS scheme.
Berrin Adcock v Blemain Finance Ltd Senior Courts Costs Office [2022] EWHC 3280 (SCCO) 19 Dec 2022
Summary: Although the court had discretion under CPR r.40.8 and r.44.2(6)(g) to award pre-judgment interest on costs from the date that they were incurred, it was important to avoid awarding interest from different dates and/or on different items or components of a costs assessment, and the discretion should be exercised on a “broad brush” basis. Pre-judgment interest should only be awarded where justice required a departure from the general incipitur rule, which was to award interest at the Judgments Act 1838 rate from the date of the costs order.
University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust v Harrison Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2022] EWCA Civ 1660 16 Dec 2022
Summary: In personal injury proceedings where the claimant had accepted a Part 36 offer after the expiry of the relevant period, such that the claimant required the court’s permission to accept the offer, an order which provided that the claimant should pay the defendant’s costs from when the relevant period expired, and further provided under CPR r.36.22 that benefits paid to the claimant since the offer was made should be deducted from the settlement sum, was not “an order for damages and interest made in favour of the claimant” within r.44.14(1), meaning that the defendant could not enforce or set off the costs order in its favour against the settlement amount due to the claimant.
Chappell v Mrozek King’s Bench Division [2022] EWHC 3147 (KB) 14 Dec 2022
Summary: Where a claimant in a personal injury claim accepted a Part 36 offer out of time and the parties agreed that the defendant was accordingly entitled to some costs, CPR r.44.14 and the qualified one-way costs shifting regime prevented the defendant from enforcing the costs liability by way of set-off against the Part 36 settlement sum.
McGreevy v Kiramba Senior Courts Costs Office [2022] EWHC 2561 (SCCO) 26 Sep 2022
Summary: The claimant in a personal injury claim had entered into a concluded and contractually binding settlement agreement to recover the fixed costs provided for in CPR r.45.29C and Table 6B in section IIIA of Pt 45, thereby contracting out of any right he might have had to claim a larger sum by reference to r.45.29J. That agreement was not superseded by a subsequent Pt 36 offer made by the defendant.
Wright v Birmingham City Council County Court (Liverpool) [2022] 6 WLUK 586 13 Jun 2022
Summary: A court refused to award a party its costs where the normal costs consequences of accepting a Part 36 offer under CPR r.36.13(1) did not apply because the acceptance was late and, applying the checklist in r.36.17(5), there had been no injustice requiring a departure from the norm. As the costs had been reduced through settlement and not by the court, Milbrooke Construction Ltd v Jones [2021] 10 WLUK 202 did not provide any guidance as to conduct issues.
Serbian Orthodox Church v Kesar & Co Queen’s Bench Division [2021] EWHC 1205 (QB) 13 May 2021
Summary: Service of a notice of commencement of costs assessment to an email address which had not been agreed by the receiving party, but which had immediately and automatically been forwarded to the correct address, was not valid service under CPR PD 6A. However, there was a good reason to make an order under r.6.27 that sufficient steps had been taken to effect good service.
Nottinghamshire CC v SF Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2020] EWCA Civ 226 3 Mar 2020
Summary: There was no error in a decision of the First-tier Tribunal that it was necessary, in the case of a seven-year-old boy with an autism spectrum disorder and other difficulties, for the local authority to make and follow an Education Health and Care plan under the Children and Families Act 2014 s.37. The word “necessary” in s.37(1) did not need to be over-defined: it was a word in common use, and what was “necessary” in any given case was an evaluative judgment to be made by the specialist tribunal.
Anthony v Collins Senior Courts Costs Office [2020] 1 WLUK 190 27 Jan 2020
Summary: A claimant’s costs were in breach of the indemnity principle where he had been in material breach of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 s.58(3)(a) by entering into an unwritten conditional fee arrangement. Although a written agreement had existed, it had been conditional on the claimant obtaining after-the-event insurance which he had failed to obtain.
Nema v Kirkland Senior Courts Costs Office [2019] 8 WLUK 301 23 Aug 2019
Summary: The detailed assessment procedure was disproportionate in a claim which had exited the Protocol for low value personal injury claims in road traffic accidents, and where a Part 36 offer had been accepted. CPR r.36.20 and Pt 45 s.IIIA between them provided comprehensive, self-contained provisions for the recovery of costs in such cases and avoided the risk of costs becoming disproportionate to the sums in dispute.
Herbert v HH Law Ltd Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2019] EWCA Civ 527 3 Apr 2019
Summary: The court construed the proper meaning and application of CPR r.46.9(3) concerning the basis of detailed assessment of solicitor and own client costs. Litigation risk remained a relevant factor when determining a success fee under a conditional fee agreement. Having, as a starting point, a 100% uplift irrespective of litigation risk was unusual and would not be justified by capping the recovery to, say, 25% of damages. An after the event insurance premium was not a solicitor’s disbursement liable to assessment under the Solicitors Act 1974 s.70.
Reynolds v One Stop Stores Ltd County Court (Norwich) [2018] 9 WLUK 268 21 Sep 2018
Summary: A district judge had not erred in his approach to proportionality when making a significant reduction to the costs sought by the claimant following the settlement of her personal injury claim.
Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2018] EWCA Civ 1654 17 Jul 2018
Summary: Under the qualified one-way costs shifting regime in CPR r.44.14(1) a defendant could enforce an order for costs out of damages payable to the claimant by another defendant. However, where the damages were payable to the claimant under the schedule to a Tomlin order, r.44.14(1) could not apply, as the schedule was not part of the court’s order but merely reflected agreement reached between the parties.
Corstorphine (A Child) v Liverpool City Council Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2018] EWCA Civ 270 26 Feb 2018
Summary: A judge had been wrong to make a costs order against the unsuccessful claimant in a personal injury claim on the basis that the qualified one-way costs shifting regime in CPR r.44.13 to r.44.17 did not apply to Part 20 defendants added to the proceedings.
Essar Oilfield Services Ltd v Norscot Rig Management Pvt Ltd Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2016] EWHC 2361 (Comm) 15 Sep 2016
Summary: An arbitrator’s general power to award costs included the power to award the costs of third party litigation funding, which were “other costs” within the Arbitration Act 1996 s.59(1)(c).
Da Costa v Sargaco Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2016] EWCA Civ 764 13 Jul 2016
Summary: In a claim for damages arising from a road traffic accident where it was alleged that the claim was fraudulent and the credibility of two claimants was in issue, a judge had been wrong to exclude one claimant from court while the other gave evidence. The starting point was that a party was entitled to be present throughout a civil trial and although there were classes of case where a departure from the norm might be justified, the judge had not given sufficient reason for taking such a course.
Jones v Spire Healthcare Ltd County Court (Liverpool) [2016] 4 WLUK 607 27 Apr 2016
Summary: An insolvent firm of solicitors could validly assign both the benefit and the burden of a conditional fee agreement to another firm.
Gentry v Miller Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2016] EWCA Civ 141 9 Mar 2016
Summary: The court considered the appropriate approach to granting relief from sanctions in cases where a defaulting party had delayed in applying for relief but could point to evidence which enabled it to allege that the claim was a fraudulent one. It was necessary to consider all the circumstances of the case; a default judgment could not be set aside as a matter of course just because an arguable fraud was alleged.
Connor v Castle Cement Queen’s Bench Division (Mercantile Court) [2016] EWHC 300 (QB) 19 Feb 2016
Summary: In an unusual and complex personal injury case the claimant had genuinely presented the psychiatric symptoms described soon after the work accident. In accordance with expert psychiatric opinion he had been suffering from an actionable psychiatric injury, namely hysterical pseudodementia.
Kellett v Wigan and District Community Transport County Court (Manchester) [2015] 9 WLUK 313 16 Sep 2015
Summary: Where a solicitor had invoked the services of a medical agency to obtain a report from an expert, it was neither reasonable nor proportionate within the meaning of CPR r.44.4(1) for the agency to charge VAT in respect of the report itself.
Dalton v British Telecommunications Plc Queen’s Bench Division District Registry (Cardiff) [2015] EWHC 616 (QB) 13 Mar 2015
Summary: Noise-induced hearing loss, sustained by a number of employees as a result of exposure to excessive noise at work, was a “disease” within the meaning of CPR Pt 45 so as to attract a success fee of 62.5 per cent where claims for damages were settled before a trial had commenced.
Savage v Mansfield DC Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2015] EWCA Civ 4 15 Jan 2015
Summary: Outline planning permission was upheld for a mixed use development near a wood containing substantial breeding populations of nightjar and woodlark. There was a risk that the woodland could be included in a potential special protection area, but that had not been formally proposed and the planning authority had therefore been under no obligation to consult Natural England or accept its advice about that possibility.
Wrobel v UK Insurance Ltd County Court (Central London) [2014] 11 WLUK 562 20 Nov 2014
Summary: An insurer was not prevented from raising an allegation of fraud in road traffic accident proceedings where default judgment had already been entered against its insured in earlier proceedings to which the insurer had not been a party. The Road Traffic Act 1988 s.151 did not create a relationship of privity between the insured and the insurer such as to prevent the fraud allegation for cause of action estoppel.
Mansfield DC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) [2014] EWHC 2167 (Admin) 2 Jul 2014
Summary: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had been entitled to claw back part of grants made from the European Regional Development Fund where the local authority receiving the grants had failed to advertise invitations to tender in the way contemplated by the regional development agency’s guidance and the European Union’s national guidance.
(on the application of Potter) v Amber Valley BC Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) [2014] EWHC 888 (Admin) 28 Mar 2014
Summary: Where a planning board had decided to grant planning permission for a residential development contrary to the advice and recommendation of its own planning officer, it was appropriate to quash that decision because the summary reasons the board gave were insufficient to demonstrate that it had followed the correct legal approach or the reason why it had disagreed with the view of its officer.
Hamnett v Essex CC Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) [2014] EWHC 246 (Admin) 13 Feb 2014
Summary: The Administrative Division of the High Court did not have jurisdiction to perform a statutory review of two experimental traffic regulation orders, which had the effect of removing disabled parking spaces on a high street, on the basis that they breached the Equality Act 2010 s.29. The clear intention of Parliament was that claims under s.29 “must” be brought in the county court.
(on the application of Hayden) v Erewash BC [2013] EWHC 3527 (Admin) | [2013] 11 WLUK 351
Summary: A local authority had not erred in granting a householder permission to build an extension. Although his neighbour had concerns about subsidence resulting from the construction work, those concerns could be dealt with through the Building Regulations 2010 and the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.
Dennis Rye Ltd v Bolsover DC Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) [2013] EWHC 1041 (Admin) 22 Mar 2013
Summary: There had been sufficient evidence for a Crown Court to convict a company on two charges for breaches of an abatement notice by burning waste, including plastics and treated wood which created dark smoke and caused a nuisance to adjoining residential properties.
Allsop v Derbyshire Dales DC Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) [2012] EWHC 3562 (Admin) 13 Nov 2012
Summary: The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s.215 afforded a local planning authority no power to issue a notice requiring a cessation of the use of land which did not contravene Pt III of the Act, and no power to issue a notice which failed to identify the substance of the mischief at which it was directed. A notice issued to a farmer was invalid where it referred to his land’s use but was in fact directed at graffiti on a trailer.
White v South Derbyshire DC Divisional Court [2012] EWHC 3495 (Admin) 8 Nov 2012
Summary: A local authority could not rely on its own ultra vires act, namely wrongly issuing a caravan site licence, to found a prosecution of the landowner for not having a valid licence.
Webb v Environment Agency
Queen’s Bench Division [2011] 4 WLUK 59 5 Apr 2011
Summary: The Environment Agency’s late introduction of a defence under the Water Resources Act 1991 s.165, which meant that court proceedings had to be discontinued in favour of Lands Tribunal proceedings, in which the claimants were largely successful, justified a departure from the usual costs rule under CPR r.38.6 that a claimant who discontinued proceedings would be liable for the costs of the defendant.
Smith v Countrywide Farmers Plc Queen’s Bench Division District Registry (Cardiff) [2010] 2 WLUK 317 11 Feb 2010
Summary: A costs judge had directed himself correctly when putting a receiving party to his election on whether to produce a copy of a conditional fee agreement or to confirm compliance with the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 by evidence. Furthermore, it was unacceptable in practice or in principle for a costs judge to scrutinize the terms of a CFA to check that all matters and all terms had been properly included.
Singh v Adams County Court (Nottingham) [2009] 4 WLUK 40 2 Apr 2009
Summary: Counsel’s fees for attendance at hearings to approve settlements pursuant to CPR r.21.10(1) could be recovered if they were necessarily incurred. The word “reasonable” was not interchangeable with the word “necessary”. The necessity of counsel’s attendance at such hearings would depend on there being some inherent complexity or difficulty in respect of the case.
Amber Valley BC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) [2009] EWHC 80 (Admin) 23 Jan 2009
Summary: A planning inspector had properly considered all relevant and material factors when determining that the conversion of a barn into a residential dwelling would not harm the character and appearance of the area, including the special landscape area.
Treharne v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Queen’s Bench Division [2008] EWHC 3222 (QB) 30 Sep 2008
Summary: The European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 could not be extended to found any claim for damages for the failure of the Child Support Agency properly to pursue maintenance assessments.
Avril v Boultby County Court (Nottingham) [2008] 5 WLUK 324 14 May 2008
Summary: On a detailed assessment of costs in a road traffic accident case, a judge had erred in disallowing a premium incurred in respect of after the event insurance obtained by a claimant, even where liability for the accident had been admitted by the defendant from the outset of the case.
(on the application of Corus UK Ltd) v Erewash BC Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) [2007] EWHC 2486 (Admin) 12 Oct 2007
Summary: An inspector’s recommendation that a brickworks site be reinstated into a local housing plan was not unconditional and the local authority was entitled to exclude the site on the basis that the underprovision of housing in the sub-area in which the site was located was offset by borough-wide overprovision of housing.
Corus UK Ltd v Erewash BC Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2006] EWCA Civ 1175 22 Jun 2006
Summary: The judge had been entitled to grant a claimant a three-day extension of time under CPR r.3.1(2) for service of a Part 8 claim form to challenge a local authority’s local plan.
Fletcher v Rushcliffe BC Employment Appeal Tribunal [2005] 4 WLUK 99 7 Apr 2005
Summary: The appellant employee (F) appealed against a finding that he was not disabled for the purposes of a disability discrimination claim brought against the respondent employer (R). F, who was employed as a landscape assistant, had had a period of absence from work due to a physical disability. However, from January 2002 his absence was covered by sick notes for depressive illness. From June to August he worked part time, claiming that the illness affected his powers of concentration and his memory, making it difficult for him to function properly at home or at work. In August he was dismissed by R on the ground of capability, R contending that the depression was caused by F dwelling on alleged problems at work which either did not exist or had been resolved. F claimed unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, and a case management conference directed that the issue of whether F was disabled should be heard first. The employment tribunal found that although F did have a recognised…
KR v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd (In Liquidation) (Part 36 Appeal: Joinder of Parties)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2003] EWCA Civ 783 10 Jun 2003
Summary: Claimants alleged abuse in children’s home – Claimants made offers under CPR Part 36 – Judge found for claimants and damages awards exceeded Part 36 offers in some cases – Separate judgment on Part 36 – Appeal on liability led to increases in general damages so that award in case of all claimants who made Part 36 offers exceeded offer – Appeal on Part 36 issues – Claimants in respect of whom judge had not made Part 36 order not joined in Part 36 appeal – Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to add those claimants to appeal and make Part 36 orders in their favour even after order in main appeal sealed – Sealing of order did not deprive Court of Appeal of jurisdiction in ancillary matters.
Hollins v Russell Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2003] EWCA Civ 718 22 May 2003
Summary: Challenges to conditional fee agreements on ground that they did not comply with Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 – Court of Appeal gave guidance on interpretation of s 58 Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and regs 2, 3 and 4 of 2000 Regulations.
KR v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd (In Liquidation) (Permission to Amend) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2003] EWCA Civ 383 24 Mar 2003
Summary: Claimants who recovered damages had made offers under CPR Part 36 – Judge awarded interest on general damages under CPR r 36.21(2) and indemnity costs under CPR r 36.21(3)(a) but refused to award interest on costs under r 36.21(3)(b) – Damages awards increased on appeal – Order for interest on damages under r 36.21(2) ran until date of judgment below not until date of judgment in Court of Appeal – Part 36 machinery not available in Court of Appeal unless Part 36 offer made in appeal proceedings – Judge should have awarded interest on costs – If order made to pay costs on indemnity basis order to pay interest on those costs unlikely to be unjust.
Farley v Prison Service Employment Appeal Tribunal [2002] 4 WLUK 320 19 Apr 2002
Summary: The respondent employer did not possess actual or constructive knowledge that F was, by reason of chronic fatigue syndrome, adversely affected by the operation of the respondent’s unsatisfactory attendance procedure such as to impose a duty to make adjustments pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 s.6.
Krajczynski v General Guarantee Finance Ltd Chancery Division [2001] 11 WLUK 185 7 Nov 2001
Summary: G appealed against an order setting aside a statutory demand served on K. K had guaranteed, under lease purchase agreements, the obligations of a company, T. The agreements related to the purchase of machinery which T transported to Romania for use in a construction project. T subsequently went into voluntary liquidation. K maintained that, at the creditors’ meeting, a representative of G had informed K that he was no longer responsible for the machines and that they would be recovered from Romania by G. K interpreted this as meaning that he had no further liabilities under the guarantee but, having failed to recover the equipment, G served a statutory demand on K which K successfully sought to have set aside on the basis that the debt was genuinely disputed. On appeal, G contended that the judge had been wrong in law to set aside the demand because there was no genuine dispute as to the existence of the debt.