top of page

Key Point

A Claimant can still have caused a claim to leave the Portal under CPR 45.24(2) when they ask a judge to order it out and that judge does so

Payne v Scott

DDJ Smedley, Birkenhead CC, 13th July 2015

The Claimant claimed loss of earnings in the Portal but did not properly evidence that head of loss during Stage 2.  At the start of the Stage 3 hearing, the Claimant asked the court to remove the claim from the Portal and place it into Part 7 proceedings, saying it was unsuitable and further evidence was required.  The Defendant weakly objected.  The judge duly ordered the claim out of the Portal and into Part 7 proceedings.

The Defendant argued that the Claimant should be restricted to Portal costs under CPR 45.24(2)(b).  However, the Claimant argued that they did not remove the claim from the Portal, the court ordered it out.  The Defendant relied on Ilahi v Usman and Doyle v Manchester Audi, arguing that where a party chooses to take a step or omit to take a step, which causes a claim to leave the Portal, then they have chosen to remove the claim from the Portal.

The judge was hesitant to find that the Claimant had acted unreasonably in circumstances where the Defendant had not really objected to the claim leaving the Portal. However, on balance he found that the Claimant had acted unreasonably, they had caused the claim to leave the Portal, and he did restrict the Claimant to Portal costs.

Go back to Main Index

Go back to Topic Index

bottom of page