Search Results

Key Point Interpreter's fees are recoverable under SIIIA Santiago v MIB [2023] EWCA Civ 838 Here the Court of Appeal grappled with the problem that interpreter's fees were, prima facie, not recoverable as a disbursement in a case to which SIIIA fixed costs applied. Following Cham v Aldred, it was generally accepted that a disbursement could only be recoverable if it arose because of a particular feature of the dispute. In Cham, the disbursement there arose because of a particular feature of the Claimant, namely that they were a child, and thus needed an opinion on quantum before any settlement could be approved. CPR 45.19(2)(e) stipulated that any disbursement not specified could only be recoverable it is arose because of a particular feature of the dispute. As the disbursement arose because of a particular feature of the Claimant, it was not recoverable. The same would therefore apply to interpreter's fees. However, since Cham had been decided, the Civil Justice Council published a report called 'Vulnerable Witnesses and Parties within the Civil Proceedings/ Current position and Recommendations for Change.' This report was addressing the critical need to ensure fair access to justice, and noted the need for interpreters, and that being unable to understand the proceedings made a person vulnerable, in that they could not participate nor give their best evidence. The court had regard to CPR 1.2(b) which required the court to give effect to the overriding objective when interpreting any rule, to ensure parties are on an equal footing and that the case is dealt with fairly. At [62] the court held: the use of the word “other” in sub-paragraph (h) supports the broader interpretation because it implies that the travel expenses and loss of earnings incurred by a party and allowed under sub-paragraphs (f) and (g) are disbursements that are “due to a particular feature of the dispute.” The common feature of such costs is that they facilitate the attendance of a party or witness and thus put the parties on an equal footing by enabling the party or witness to participate fully in the hearing. That is also a defining feature of the cost of an interpreter, without whom the party or witness cannot participate fully in the hearing and, specifically, cannot give their best evidence. Allowing the interpreter’s fee to be recovered under subparagraph (h) is therefore consistent with the inclusion of the disbursements allowed under sub-paragraphs (f) and (g). I would therefore hold that the application of normal principles of construction does not preclude the interpretation of sub-paragraph (h) for which Mr Williams contends. Far from it: in my judgment, the application of normal principles strongly supports his proposed interpretation. I would have reached this conclusion before the 2021 Amendments. At [59] the court noted that in Cham, the disbursement was only incurred after parties had settled, so had no impact on reaching the settlement concerned, whereas without an interpreter, a Claimant who did not speak English could not even get their claim off the ground. The court also noted that the cost of counsel's advice was deemded to be included in the costs allowed in Table 6B, whereas if an interpreter's fee was not recoverable as a disbursement, it was not remunerated at all, either actually or notionally. Therefore the Court of Appeal held that the cost of translator fees were recoverable. At [64] they concluded: "This distinction permits us to conclude that we are not bound by Cham to adopt an interpretation of sub-paragraph (h) which is not in accordance with the overriding objective on the different facts that are in play in the present appeal. I would accept that the effect of Cham is that a disbursement should ordinarily be held to be “reasonably incurred due to a particular feature of the dispute” within sub-paragraph (h) if it was required to enable the determination by the Court of a particular issue in the case rather than because of a particular characteristic of a party or witness. However, where considerations of access to justice arise, a broader interpretation is necessary to enable the dispute to be determined by the Court in accordance with the overriding objective. It follows, in my judgment, that the independent interpreter’s fee (assuming it to be reasonably incurred) is properly to be regarded as a disbursement falling within sub-paragraph (h)." Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Index Fixed Costs Cases List of Topics New Fixed Costs cases from Oct 2023 Soft Tissue Injury Claims Common Law Principles do not apply in Portals Individual Heads of Loss in Portals Pre-Oct 23 SIIIA CPR 45 - Fixed costs on leaving the Portals Part 36 offers and Pre-Oct 23 SIIIA Fixed costs When CPR 45x.24/CPR 45.35 can be applied Leaving the Portals Cannot use Hindsight or Speculation in MOJ Portals Using the Portals Montreal Convention Claims and the Portals Are Portal Admissions binding outside the Portal? Portal Offers outside the Portal Portal Exceptional Circumstances Costs CPR 45x.29J Miscellaneous matters - Interim Payments, Montreal Convention claims, Range of Prognosis, Offer of zero Website currently undergoing some redesign, so you may see some inconsistent fonts and spacing. However, all the links should still work. Search the site here: Oct 23+ New Fixed Costs Cases Asmat Bi v Tesco Underwriting Ltd HHJ Sephton KC, Manchester CC, Aug 2024, claim no K04MA298 Whilst only a first tier hearing, Asmat Bi v Tesco Underwriting is useful as a point of reference given the paucity of case law on the October 23 extension to fixed costs. Here the court was considering the incidence of costs in a case where a non-personal injury claim had settled by acceptance of a Part 36 offer without the need for proceedings, and notably before the commencement of the new fixed costs regime. Costs could not be agreed, and so the claimant brought Part 8 proceedings. HHJ Sephton found that the Amendment Rules (SI 572/2023) were procedural in nature, and therefore followed the general convention that they were retrospective in effect. He found the Claimant's entitlement to costs only crystallised after the costs had been assessed, allowed or agreed. Thus the case fell to be decided under the costs rules then rather than at the point of settlement, which was under the extended fixed costs. This case is not without its critics. Clearly the parties contracted for settlement on the basis they would pay the costs applicable at the time of settlement. Clarity from a higher court would be very much appreciated! Judgment Click here for a copy of the judgment Soft Tissue Injuries Claims Mason v Laing HHJ Gosnell, Bradford CC, 20th Jan 20 The Portal rules are strict; if in a soft tissue injury claim the first report is not disclosed before subsequent ones, a Claimant cannot rely on the subsequent reports. Greyson v Fuller [2022] EWHC 211 (QB) A claimant failed to disclose a first report before a subsequent report, so were held to be in breach of para 7.8A of the RTA Protocol. However, the judge allowed the claimant Relief from Sanction. On appeal the High Court said the proper sanction was costs, not exclusion of the evidence. Moesaid v Calder DDJ Kube, Manchester CC, 27th Aug 2021 Where a subsequent report took the claim out of the definition of soft tissue injury claim, it did not matter when the reports were disclosed, the special rules on soft tissue injuries did not apply. Abdulmalik v Calder DJ Carter, Manchester CC, 2nd Feb 2022 There was no requirement for the first report to be disclosed before the second report was obtained, only disclosed. However, compliance with the order of disclosure required did not mean that the cost of the report would automatically be allowed - the court could still disallow it for other reasons. The time to consider whether the claim was a soft tissue injury claim was when the second report was being disclosed. Common Law Principles do not apply in the Portal Draper v Newport DJ Baker, Birkenhead CC, 3rd Sept 2014 (Common Law Mistake does not apply in the Portals) Fitton v Ageas DJ Parker, Liverpool CC, 8th Nov 2018 (Common Law Mistake does not apply in the Portals) Harris v Brown HHJ Davey QC, Bradford CC, 18th Jun 2019 (Common Law Mistake does apply in the Portals) Kilby v Brown DJ Peake, Birkenhead CC, 10th Feb 2014 (Waiver & Affirmation do not apply in the Portals) Purcell v McGarry HHJ Gore QC, Liverpool CC, Friday 7th Dec 2012 (First Tier Appeal - Offer and Acceptance does not apply in the Portals) Patel v Fortis Recorder Morgan, Leicester CC, 5th Dec 2011 (Non-Portal CPRs do not apply in the Portals) Individual Heads of Loss Bewicke-Copley v Ibeh DJ Vincent, Oxford CC, 4th Jun 2015 (Agreed individual heads of loss are binding) Bushell v Parry HHJ Gregory, Liverpool CC, 15th March 2015 (First Tier Appeal - Agreed individual heads of loss are not binding) Maddocks v Lyn e HHJ Wood QC, Chester CC, 22nd January 2016 (First Tier Appeal - Agreed individual heads of loss are normally binding, entire Portal settlements are binding) Phillips v Willis [2016] EWCA Civ 401 (Irrational for judge to order case out of Portal, individual heads of loss can be agreed) Old SIIIA CPR 45x Fixed costs on leaving the Portal Melloy & Anor v UK Insurance Ltd [2002] EW Misc 4 (CC) Where there is more than one claimant in a SIIIA claim, each party is entitled to a set of SIIIA fixed costs West v Burton [ 2021] EWCA Civ 1005 (SIIIA costs do not apply where the claimant dies whilst the claim is in the Portal) Coleman v Townsend Master Haworth, SCCO, 13th July 2020 (What disbursements can be allowed post- Cham in SIIIA cases) Hislop v Perde: Kaur v Committee (for the time being) of Ramgarhia Board Leicester [2018] EWCA Civ 1726 (No indemnity costs on late acceptance of a Part 36 where SIIIA applies) Broadhurst v Tan; Taylor v Smith [2016] EWCA Civ 94 (SIIIA Indemnity costs are hourly rate not fixed) Qader v Esure Services Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1109 (Exception to SIIIA costs where allocated to multi-track) Sharp v Leeds City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 33 (SIIIA fixed costs for interim applications apply even for Pre-Action Disclosure applications) Bird v Acorn [2016] EWCA Civ 1096 (Re stage of fixed costs) Chapman v Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust DJ Swindley, Bolton County Court, 15th Jun 2016 (A court has the power to vary quantum of fixed SIIIA costs for conduct) Petit v MIB & 5 Ors DJ Pollard, Brighton CC, 15th Feb 2017 (Where claim not properly started in the Portal, SIIIA costs did not follow) Cham (by their Litigation Friend Laura Martin) v Aldred [2019] EWCA Civ 1780 (Deals with disbursements under SIIIA) Santiago v MIB [2023] EWCA Civ 838 (Interpreter's fees are recoverable under SIIIA) Part 36 offers & (old) SIIIA Fixed costs Cookson v Manchester City Council HHJ Main QC, Manchester CC, 28.04.17 (Acceptance of a Part 36 offer removes the court's powers under CPR 45.24 to limit the claimant to Portal costs) Ansell v AT&T DDJ Lynch, Slough County Court, 12th June 2017 (first instance) HHJ Clarke, Oxford County Court, 14th December 2017 (on appeal) (Acceptance of a Part 36 offer does not remove the court's powers under CPR 45.24 to limit the claimant to Portal costs) When CPR 45.24 can be applied (now CPR 45.35) Brown v Ezeugwa HHJ Simpkiss (Designated Circuit Judge) with DJ Lethem (Regional Costs Judge) as assessor Tunbridge Wells CC, 23rd January 2014 (First Tier Appeal - Fixed costs can be awarded on assessment; not limited to when order for costs made/agreed) Davies v Greenway Master Simons, SCCO, 30th Oct 2013 (Appeal to SCCO - Fixed costs can be awarded on assessment and standard basis does not exclude fixed costs) Williams v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy [2018] EWCA Civ 852 (Where CPR 45.24 could not be used, but the court could get to the same result otherwise) Timothy Taylor & 27 Ors v ZStage (UK) Ltd Real China Restaurant DJ Griffith, Birmingham CC, 3rd Sept 2019 (Following total non-use of the Portal, an agreement by way of Tomlin Order to settle damages counted as a judgment for the purposes of CPR 45.24, and the court ordered the Defendant to pay no more than portal costs under CPR 45.24(2)(c). Sarah Robson for the Defendant, against Roger Mallalieu.) The Claimant indicated they were going to appeal, but ultimately did not do so. Leaving the Portals Patel v Fortis Recorder Morgan, Leicester CC, 5th Dec 2011 (Leaving for technical non-compliance only not reasonable) Modhwadia v Modhwadia DJ Atkinson Leicester CC 25th Jan 2014; reviewed DJ Atkinson 29th Sept 2014; on appeal HHJ Hampton 20th Jan 2015 (First Tier Appeal - Failure to explain reason for offer not fatal) Ilahi v Usman HHJ Platts, Manchester CC, 29th Nov 2012 (First Tier Appeal - CPR 45.24 engaged even when case automatically left, where that departure was caused by an act which the Claimant elected to take) Doyle v Manchester Audi DJ Matharu, Manchester CC, 25th Jun 2013 (Omission to act causing claim to leave Portal was an election to leave) Payne v Scott DDJ Smedley, Birkenhead CC, 13th Jul 2015 (Where judge ordered case out of Portal was still Claimant's election to leave) Uppal v Daudia DDJ Matthews, Leicester CC, 14th May 2012 (No obligation to make offer in Portal, unreasonable to leave for that, D's Costs awarded on indemnity basis following finding that C acted unreasonably) Rafiania v All Type Scaffolding Ltd DDJ Corscadden, Manchester CC, 14th Jan 2015 (No test of reasonableness for total failure to use the Portal) Monteith v Carroll Liverpool CC, 17th October 2012 (Making a pre-med offer did not justify leaving the Portal) Hussain v Wardle Stoke on Trent CC, DJ Rank, 25th Feb 2017 (Claim left Portal after Claimant failed to include mandatory information in the CNF) Bursuc v EUI Ltd DJ Revere, Clerkenwell & Shoreditch CC, 30th May 2018 (Not unreasonable to leave Portal Protocol because became too complex, applications to limit C to Portal costs cannot be made until claim concluded) Cannot use Hindsight or Speculation Raja v Day & MIB HHJ Gregory, Liverpool CC, 02.03.15 (Cannot take into account would have left the Portal anyway) Tennant v Co ttrell (Cannot change reason for leaving, nor retrospectively justify reason) Dawrant v Pa rt & Parcel Network Ltd (First Tier Appeal - Cannot use hindsight when a case has left the Portal) Ryan v Hack ett [2020] EWHC 288 (QB) (Could take into account what happens after a claim leaves the Portal when determining costs on the facts of this case) Using the Portals London Borough of Islington v Bourous, Davis & Yousaf [2022] EWCA Civ 1242 Approved Mulholland v Hughes that a party cannot argue something in Stage 3 not raised in Stage 2, and commented that the White Book note re Phillips v Willis is not accurate. Wickes Building Supplies Ltd v Blair (No.2) Costs [2020] EWCA Civ 17 The Court of Appeal agreed with Sarah Robson that QOCS applied to this second tier appeal, preferring the reasoning of Edis J in Parker v Butler [2016] EWHC 1251 (QB) over that in both Wagenaar v Weekend Travel Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1105 and Hawksford Trustees Jersey Ltd v Stella Global UK Ltd and another [2012] EWCA Civ 987. Not to apply QOCS on appeals would deny access to justice. (1) Akram v Aviva Insurance Ltd and (2) Mahmood v Tillott, HHJ Jarman QC, Wrexham CC, 29.09.21 (The Claimants in both appeals relied on emails from their solicitors uploaded in Stage 2 at the Stage 3 hearings. The Defendant appealed both arguing no weight should be given to the contents of those emails, and that the information therein could only be provided by way of witness statement. HHJ Jarman QC upheld both lower court decisions finding that this was appropriate in the fairly rough justice of the Portal.) Mulholland v Hughes HHJ Freedman, Newcastle CC, 18.09.15 (First Tier Appeal - Offers in the Portal do not amount to admissions, Claimants have to repay over-payment of damages in non-settlement payment, Arguments at Stage 3 limited by those in Stage 2 pack.) Khan v Alliance Insurance Plc HHJ Gosnell, Leeds CC, 01.06.20 (Judge cannot raise an issue in Stage 3 not raised by the parties in Stage 2; Defendant can only challenge claim in limited way in the Portal.) Mozzano v Riwa (Multiple CNFs - how to deal.) Lamb v Gregory (Witness statements are permitted under the [2010] Protocol - which did not specify these under the permitted items.) Raja v Day & MIB HHJ Gregory, Liverpool CC, 02.03.15 (First Tier Appeal - Default position on finding a Portal breach is fixed costs, burden shifts to Claimant to show why should not apply.) Smith v Owen (Unreasonable exit for non payment of disbursement.) Liverpoo l Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Yavuz & Ors [2017] EWHC 3088 (QB) (6 Dec 2017) (Contempt re completion of CNF.) David G rant v Dawn Meats (UK) [2018] EWCA Civ 2212 (Limitation, Stays and Service of a Portal Claim form.) Portal Offers outside the Portal Purcell v McGarry (Portal offers are open for acceptance in Stage 3) Akinrodoye v Esure (Portal offers are open for acceptance even after Part 7 proceedings issued) Ingrid Smith v Greater Manchester Buses South Ltd (Protocol offers only remain open for acceptance after a claim leaves the Portal.) Castle v Andrews & Dickens Ltd (Protocol offers are open for acceptance after a claim leaves the Portal, not Portal offers) Are Portal Admissions binding outside the Portal? Ullah v Jon (Portal Admissions are binding outside the Portals) Malak v Nasim (Portal Admissions are not binding outside the Portals) Chimel v Chibwana & Williams (First Tier Appeal - Portal Admission is binding outside the Portal, Ullah and Malak considered, Ullah preferred) Maddocks v Lyne (First Tier Appeal - Entire Portal settlements are binding) Mukadam v Nazir (First Tier Appeal - side note on Portal admission noting was made without driver's instructions did not change effect of admission made by employer's insurers) Mullen v Nelson Insurance Co Ltd (First Tier Appeal - Portal admission made by Insurer of Employer was binding on Employee, Chimel followed) Exceptional Circumstances Costs - CPR 45.29J Ferri v Gill [2019] EWHC 952 (QB) (Considered what the basket of cases was in a CPR 45.29J application, and test was a high bar) Jackson v Barfoot Farms (Whether agreement to pay costs on the standard basis excluded the award of fixed costs, and non-fixed costs were awarded as the case was exceptional per CPR 45.29J) Crompton v Meadowcroft (Costs ) [2021] EW Misc 20 (24 Aug 21) (CPR 45.29J Exceptional circumstances costs awarded in case with multiple experts, 13 reports, 11 sets of records , MRI scans, multiple surgeries caused, CBT & Physio needed, Ogden calculations, Smith & Manchester calculation) Lloyd v 2 Sisters Poultry Ltd (Costs) [2019] EW Misc (29 Jan 19) (Exceptional circumstances costs awarded under CPR 45.29J where C had permanent disability, complex loss of earnings claim/Billet calculation using Ogden tables, extensive specials, very long witness statements) Baker v Flynn (The lower court awarded exceptional circumstances costs under CPR 45.29J - the fact that liability was in dispute was a major consideration, there were also issues under the Equality Act, use of Ogden tables, pension loss and so forth. Upheld on appeal for same reasons) West v Olakanpo [2020] EWHC 3830 (QB) (Exceptional circumstances costs awarded at first instance for fundamental dishonesty, overturned on appeal as evidence not tested in cross-examination) Miscellaneous cases Offer of Zero is a Valid Offer Dickinson v Langford Piotr Glazer v Nathan Reid Range of Prognosis Period given Dominic v Martin (First Portal appeal, established that should award in middle where range of prognosis given in absence of witness evidenc e) Interim Payments Luvin v Ageas Insurance Ltd (Sets out the rules and procedure on interim payments) Ampratwum v Zbigniew Samajeden & Esure (special rules on interim payments for vehicle related damages - judgment not available) Montreal Convention Claims Mead v British Airways PLC (The Portal does not apply to Montreal Convention Claims) McKendry v Br itish Airways PLC (The Portal does not apply to Montreal Convention Claims) Miscellaneous cases Offer of Zero is a Valid Offer Dickinson v Langford Birkenhead CC, 14th Feb 2013 Piotr Glazer v Nathan Reid DDJ Johnson, Liverpool CC, 2nd Mar 2012 Range of Prognosis Period given Dominic v Martin HHJ Stewart QC, Manchester CC, 21st Jul 2011 (First Portal appeal, established that should award in middle where range of prognosis given in absence of witness evidenc e) Interim Payments Luvin v Ageas Insurance Ltd DJ Doyle, Birkenhead CC, 17th Sept 2015 (Sets out the rules and procedure on interim payments) Ampratwum v Zbigniew Samajeden & Esure Birkenhead CC, 5th Jun 2013 (special rules on interim payments for vehicle related damages - judgment not available) Montreal Convention Claims Mead v British Airways PLC DJ Moss, Manchester County Court, 15th Jan 2018 (The Portal does not apply to Montreal Convention Claims) McKendry v Br itish Airways PLC DJ Baldwin (sitting as Regional Costs Judge) Liverpool County Court, 16th May 2018 (The Portal does not apply to Montreal Convention Claims) Submissions gratefully received Sarah Robson is always very happy to receive any cases on matters related to fixed costs to add to her website.

Common Law Principles do not apply in Portal Draper v Newport DJ Baker, Birkenhead CC, 3rd Sept 2014 (Common Law Mistake does not apply in the Portals) Fitton v Ageas DJ Parker, Liverpool CC, 8th Nov 2018 (Common Law Mistake does not apply in the Portals) Harris v Brown HHJ Davey QC, Bradford CC, 18th Jun 2019 (Common Law Mistake does apply in the Portals) Kilby v Brown DJ Peake, Birkenhead CC, 10th Feb 2014 (Waiver & Affirmation do not apply in the Portals ) Purcell v McGarry HHJ Gore QC, Liverpool CC, 7th Dec 2012 (First Tier Appeal - Offer and Acceptance does not apply in the Portals) Patel v Fortis Recorder Morgan, Leicester CC, 5th Dec 2011 (Non-Portal CPRs do not apply in the Portals) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index

Key Point Tomlin Order held to equate to a 'judgment' for the purposes of CPR 45.24 Timothy Taylor & 27 Ors v ZStage (UK) Ltd Real China Restaurant DJ Griffith, Birmingham CC, 3rd September 2019 Between 11th-24th July 2014, around 100 people contracted salmonella poisoning when eating at the Defendant’s restaurant. 94 claims were made by 15 firms of solicitors. All except the 28 Claimants in these proceedings were brought individually in the MOJ Portal. The Defendant maintained throughout that these claims too should have been brought in the Portal, and that the Claimant’s failure to do so should sound in costs, per the court’s specific powers under CPR 45.24(2) and/or under the court’s general powers per CPR 44. The claimant argued that by lumping all these minor claims together, they were worth more than the portal upper Portal limit and together they were too complex for the portal. Individually each claim was worth below the portal limit and all required only one expert. Most recovered in just a few months. The judge found that the Claimant should have brought the claims in the Portal, it was unreasonable not to do so, and thus he limited the Claimant to no more than Portal costs. What is particularly interesting about this case is that the claims settled before trial. Thus there was no judgment entered as required by CPR 45.24. Whilst the court had the alternative route to get to exactly the same result under CPR 44, per Williams v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy [2018] EWCA Civ 852 , the court found there was no need to use that route. Instead it found that Williams did not define 'judgment', and that the CPRs used 'order' and 'judgment' interchangeably. Thus he was content that the Tomlin Order was sufficient to amount to a 'judgment' for the purposes of CPR 45.24. However, he granted the claimant permission to appeal on his interpretation of 'judgment'. Ultimately the Claimant did not pursue their appeal. Roger Mallalieu instructed by Irwin Mitchell for the Claimant, Sarah Robson instructed by Percy Hughes and Roberts for the Defendants. Click here for a copy of the judgment Click here for a pdf copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Part 36 Offers and SIIIA Fixed Costs Cookson v Manchester City Council HHJ Main QC, Manchester CC, 28.04.17 (Acceptance of a Part 36 offer removes the court's powers under CPR 45.24 to limit the claimant to Portal costs) Ansell v AT&T DDJ Lynch, Slough County Court, 12th June 2017 (first instance) HHJ Clarke, Oxford County Court, 14th December 2017 (on appeal) (Acceptance of a Part 36 offer does not remove the court's powers under CPR 45.24 to limit the claimant to Portal costs) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index

Key Point Fixed SIIIA costs do not apply to cases allocated to the multi-track Qadar v Esure Services Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1109 This claim had started in the Portal then left, and was allocated to the multi-track and so, prima facie, fell into fixed costs under SIIIA of CPR 45. The Claimant argued that these costs should not apply. They demonstrated a clear intention that fixed costs were intended to apply to claims allocated to the fast track, pointing out how this had been the stated intention from Jackson LJ's reports and consultations and replies to consultations. The Claimant was thus able to establish that the intention of Parliament had not been included in the CPRs by mere inadvertence. The Court of Appeal found authority in Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586 for correcting obvious drafting errors including omissions in rules. This was a clear case where the court should exercise that jurisdiction. The court, therefore, added in the words 'unless allocated to the multi-track' to the rules to achieve that end. It is interesting to see that the Claimant demonstrated that the fixed costs were intended to apply only to fast-track cases. However, the Court of Appeal excluded cases unless allocated to the multi-track, rather than specify it was for cases allocated to the fast-track. They also made it clear there has to be that allocation. This gives certainty, removing arguments around whether a case would have been allocated to the multi-track, but arguably does not follow from the precise position which the Claimant established. Click here for a copy of the judgment Click here for a pdf copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Key Point A Claimant can be limited to Portal costs only where costs unreasonably or disproportionately incurred, per CPR 44 - court's powers not limited to CPR 45.24 Davies v Greenway Master Simmons, SCCO, 30th Oct 2013 The Claimant failed to use the Portal against the correct Defendant. Parties agreed damages and costs went for assessment. At first instance, the court held that an order for standard basis costs precluded an award under CPR 45.36 (now 45.24). However, Master Simmons held that he could only award costs which were proportionate and reasonably incurred. He found that all costs incurred above Portal costs were disproportionate and thus the Claimant was awarded Portal costs only. NB the later decision of Brown v Ezeugwa found that standard basis costs did allow an award directly under CPR 45.36 (now 45.24) as well as under the proportionality test here. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Key Point A court can order Portal costs under CPR 45.24 even where a Part 36 offer has been accepted Brown v Ezeugwa HHJ Simpkiss (Designated Circuit Judge) with DJ Lethem (Regional Costs Judge) as assessor Tunbridge Wells CC, 23rd January 2014 The claim left the Portal and went into Part 7 proceedings where it was settled by a consent order. That read that the Defendant was to pay the Claimant standard basis costs to be assessed if not agreed. The Claimant argued that meant they could not be restricted to fixed Portal and had the Defendant wanted to argue that fixed costs applied they should have done so before the order was made, not when costs were being assessed. The court noted there were two issued, firstly whether the paying party could take a point under CPR 45.36 (now 45.24) at the time the judgment was given and secondly whether an award of costs on the standard basis precluded an argument under CPR 45.36 (now CPR 45.24). The court held there was nothing in the rules which supported the contention that an order for costs under CPR 45.36 (now 45.24) had to be made at the time the order for costs was made. The court also noted that if the Rules Committee had intended that power should only be exercised at the stage when a costs order was made then it was surprising that the provision was not included in Part 44. At [28] the court held: 28. ...The issues in relation to costs fall into three stages. Stage 1 is the award of costs. Stage 2 is the decision by the assessing judge of what the order for costs means, and stage 3 is the quantification on that basis. 29. In this case Stage 1 was consented to in the order of 12th December 2012. The Defendant was to pay the Claimant’s costs, and the basis of costs was to be the standard basis. Stage 2 was, not surprisingly and not unusually, elided into Stage 3, but the deputy district judge did set about the assessment on the basis of a standard basis assessment. 30. Where, in our judgment, he went wrong was not to apply his mind to the distinction between the award of costs and the direction as to the basis that the assessment should take place with the quantification or assessment process itself. CPR 44.3 and 4 are concerned with the award and the basis of assessment. CPR 45, albeit relating to fixed costs, is one of the provisions that deals with the quantification of those costs, and therefore in our judgment there is no reason why the assessing judge cannot exercise the powers under 45.36 in carrying out that assessment. Thus the court confirmed that an order for standard basis costs does not preclude costs being assessed under CPR 45.24 (was 45.36). The court also confirmed the position found in Patel v Fortis that a court has the power to restrict a Claimant to Portal costs following settlement, not just judgment, a position reversed in Williams v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy [2018] EWCA Civ 852 . Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Key Point A Court can restrict to Portal costs under CPR 44 generally following a Portal breach, not just under CPR 45.24(2) Williams v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy [2018] EWCA Civ 852 Here the court considered a case where CPR 45.24 was not available as Part 7 proceedings had not been issued. The court found that they could reach the same result via a different route, namely by the use of CPR 44.11. Court of Appeal noted it was hardly unusual for the CPRs to provide for two concurrent routes to the same result. This is exactly as the SCCO found in Davies v Greenway and Tunbridge Wells CC found on appeal in Brown v Ezeugwa . Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Are Portal Admissions binding outside the Portal? Ullah v Jon DJ Parker, Croydon CC, 20th Mar 2013 (Portal Admissions are binding outside the Portals) Malak v Nasim DJ Woods, Watford CC, December 2014 (Portal Admissions are not binding outside the Portals) Chim el v Chibwana & Williams HHJ Simpkiss, Reigate CC, 31st October 2016 (First Tier Appeal - Portal Admission is binding outside the Portal, Ullah and Malak considered, Ullah preferred) Maddocks v Lyne HHJ Wood QC, Chester CC, 22nd Jan 2016 (First Tier Appeal - Entire Portal settlements are binding) Mukadam v Nazir HHJ Khan, Preston CC, 14th May 2020 (First Tier Appeal - side note on Portal admission noting was made without driver's instructions did not change effect of admission made by employer's insurers) Mullen v Nelson Insurance Co Ltd HHJ Wood QC, Liverpool CC, 2nd Oct 2020 (First Tier Appeal - Portal admission made by Insurer of Employer was binding on Employee, Chimel followed) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index

About Sarah Robson Sarah Robson Barrister Fixed Costs Specialist Call now on 0800 634 9650 Geographical Area Covered The yellow circle shows the courts that Sarah Robson normally works in for in person hearings, although most of her work is still remote so all courts in England & Wales are available. Sarah Robson is closest to courts around the Coventry / Northampton / Milton Keynes / Birmingham / Leicester / Reading area, but also regularly travels to Birkenhead, Liverpool, Leeds, Cardiff, Manchester, Bristol and across London. Sarah will travel further by arrangement. The Sun Newspaper - December 2023 Sarah Robson was recently interviewed by a National Newspaper, The Sun, regarding a specialist court case concerning liability orders for the boxer, Tyson Fury. This article appeared on the front page of The Sun in December 2023. Read the article here: Tyson Fury's next big fight is against the tax man - after champ accused of dodging massive bill | The Sun Counsel Magazine Oct 2023 Lessons learnt: The black belt barrister | COUNSEL | The Magazine of the Bar of England and Wales (counselmagazine.co.uk) Counsel magazine recently ran an article about Sarah Robson being a black belt and a barrister, in particular how each 'skill set' impacts on the other. Alpha Court Chambers Sarah practices at: Alpha Court Chambers alphacourtchambers.co.uk 12 Paddock Close Bidford-on-Avon, Alcester Warwickshire B50 4PJ Professional clients should ring for Sarah's postal address if needed.