Search Results

Poor Conduct impact on costs - conduct required before issuing Part 7 proceedings - claimants cannot simply issue with impunity - all circumstances considered. Key Point Claimant must act proportionately, no absolute right to issue proceedings after 21 days from disclosure Bobby Prior v Silverline International Ltd HHJ Wood QC, Liverpool CC, 8th Jul 2015 Here the court considered whether to impose a costs sanction where the Claimant had acted unreasonably in issuing proceedings. The Claimant had sent the Defendant their medical report, waited 21 days, then having not received a satisfactory offer from the Defendant, they issued proceedings. As it happens the Defendant had sent an offer, but the Claimant had not received it. The Claimant relied on the fact they had complied with the Protocol by waiting 21 days from sending the medical report to issuing proceedings, as has happened here. However, on appeal at [12], HHJ Wood QC said: “So I ask the question has the Claimant, even if strictly permitted so to do, acted unreasonably by embarking on a course which is wholly disproportionate to the value of the claim and the relief sought?” (My emphasis.) At [15] HHJ Wood QC said that the PI Protocol was to promote early resolution and to avoid the escalation of disproportionate costs, and attention should be drawn to para 2.16 (now 9.1.1) which emphasised that litigation should be a last resort. At [23] HHJ Wood QC said: “If litigation was to be conducted on the basis, ‘Ah you’re too late now. Tough. You’re just going to have to pay the consequences,’ then the system, which is predicated upon a degree of cooperation as exemplified in the Protocol, would break down. There must be more flexibility in the system than that…”. The court concluded at [24] that it was: “… insufficient in my judgment, for the Claimant to rely solely upon the fact, this fact, to justify this proportionately expensive course of action. It cannot in my judgment, be assumed that entitlement to assessed costs is absolute if the issue ball starts rolling at one-minute past midnight.” (My emphases). And at [25]: “… it should not be assumed that a legitimate Protocol issue automatically entitles a party to its costs without regard to the background… the entitlement is not absolute in the context of a requirement to act proportionately in the circumstances.” Click here for a copy of the judgment Back to Other Cases Back to Cases Index

Home Page for Sarah Robson - Costs Barrister - The Original Black Belt Barrister - Specialist in Fixed Costs. Ranked as a Leading Junior for Costs in the Legal 500. Sarah Robson Black Belt Barrister (4th Dan) 2002 Call Legal 500 Sarah Robson has been ranked in the 2026 Legal 500 as a Leading Junior for Costs. Leading juniors are those with significant experience of key cases, strong market recognition from both peers and clients, and are seen as future candidates for silk. "Sarah is clearly a leading expert in the world of fixed costs disputes. She has an encyclopaedic knowledge of costs. Incredibly thorough, strategic, and always well-prepared. A fearless and tenacious barrister." Search the site here: Black Belt Barrister Sarah Robson is the original "Black Belt Barrister." By day she is a Fixed Costs specialist. By night, she can be found at the local Dojang, practising her Dark Arts, aka Taekwondo. Sarah attends Detailed Assessments, Oral Reviews, Preliminary Costs Hearings, CCMCs, Appeals, Fast and Multi-Track matters. She is THE go-to barrister for anything to do with Fixed costs. As well as being an excellent advocate in court, she is also happy to advise, particularly on technical points and procedural tactics. Sarah represents both Claimants and Defendants - she feels working for both sides gives her a better understanding of how the other side are likely to run a case. Sarah Robson East Midlands based Costs Specialist Sarah Robson is part of Alpha Court Chambers based in Warwickshire, home of Warwick Castle. Where? Sarah Robson appears in the SCCO, as well as High Courts and County Courts across much of Central England and Wales. She covers from Leeds to London, Cardiff to Norwich - Nationwide for remote hearings - or on request for in person. Usual Operating Area Fixed Costs Specialist Sarah Robson is a specialist costs barrister with a strong reputation in court. Sarah is known for her thorough preparation, and for providing detailed and practical advice. Solicitors often comment how they have never seen counsel so well prepared. Sarah is the top counsel for cases concerning Fixed Costs. Speaking Engagements Sarah speaks around the country on fixed costs. Sarah is a popular and engaging speaker. She is not phased by addressing large audiences. She can also be persuaded to provide a Taekwondo demonstration, and has been surprised by the eagerness of the judiciary to have a go too! Sarah speaks to both Claimant and Defendant audiences, and to professional and lay clients. Please email to find out about her speaking availability. Service Sarah Robson does not have a clerk - she does not need one. Once clients have seen how Sarah works and how good she is they keep coming back! Solicitors can talk directly to Sarah when they book a case and often benefit from discussing the case with her at that point. There is usually time then to take steps to strengthen your case, whereas where a clerk has taken the booking it is often too late by the time counsel receive papers for a hearing. It is not unusual for cases to settle once the other side hear that Sarah Robson is the barrister on your side. Reputation Sarah is an experienced advocate with a strong reputation in court. Sarah is known for her thorough preparation, and for providing detailed and practical advice. Solicitors often comment how they have never seen counsel so well prepared. Sarah is the top counsel for cases concerning fixed costs. Awards and Scholarships Sarah was awarded the London University Prize for Distinguished Exam Performance in her LLB (Hons) (1999) Sarah received a major award from the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple for her Bar School year (2001) Sarah received a major award from her Bar School, the University of the West of England (2001) Original Black Belt Barrister Sarah is the original Black Belt Barrister. She is a current practicing 4th degree black belt in Tae kwon do, a fully qualified Tae kwon do instructor and referee. She is registered with the British Taekwondo Council. She regularly judges Tae kwon do competitions at both local and national level. Bar Standards Board Sarah Robson is a barrister regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB). She is governed by the Bar Standards Board Code of Conduct. The Barristers' Register shows (1) who has a current practising certificate, and (2) whether a barrister has any disciplinary findings, which are published on the Barristers’ Register in accordance with the BSB’s policy. Contractual Terms All work is carried out under COMBAR's standard terms and conditions, payment option A. These can be found her e . These terms will apply to all instructions and briefs accepted from solicitors and other authorised persons unless other terms have been agreed in writing. Instruction Sarah aims to make the process of instructing her straight-forward. She understand the need to be flexible and to work together as a team to provide practical solutions. If you would like to instruct her please call or email direct. Please do not supply details about the case before checking if she is conflicted. Work in England and Wales Sarah accepts instructions from: •Solicitors, other authorised litigators, employed barristers and legal advice centres in England & Wales •European lawyers registered with the Law Society and qualified lawyers from other jurisdictions •Licensed professionals in the UK under the Licensed Access scheme Please note Sarah is not Direct Access Qualified . Members of the public should seek a solicitor. Fees/Timescales Sarah is happy to discuss fees, which are usually based on her hourly/daily rate, and agree a fixed fee, which will vary depending on the work required. These fees are likely to be higher if your case is particularly complex or urgent. A fixed fee means she will charge you a set amount of money for the work required. She will need to agree a fee in advance for each piece of work going forward. She is willing to provide quotations or estimates of fees and a timetable for completing work. Fee quotations or estimates will usually be based on hourly/daily rates. She can also in some circumstances offer a fixed or capped fee for drafting or a hearing. For trials will be provide an estimate of a brief fee and where appropriate, a refresher rate. Fees may be structured in a way to suit the client, for instance charging agreed fees for preparation of a skeleton argument, for general preparation, and for attendance at court. Timescales Timescales for completion of work can depend on a number of factors, examples being: availability of Counsel and or client; complexity of the matter; and number of papers involved; and will obviously be affected by the volume of other work being undertaken. For instance if counsel is engaged in a two-week trial it may not be possible to complete work within the usual timescale. As a guide, she would normally expect to complete paperwork within three weeks unless external factors (which will be explained at the outset) prevent this. As regards court work, much depends on the timetables provided by the courts, over which she has no control, and the need to comply with court prescribed timetables. Work required to comply with these timetables has to take priority over other work. Complaints A copy of Chambers' Complaints policy can be found by clicking the above link . If you are unhappy with the response to your complaint, or if you receive no final response within eight weeks and you fall within their jurisdiction you may take up your complaint with the Legal Ombudsman, the independent complaints body for complaints about lawyers. The Ombudsman is not able to consider your complaint until it has first been investigated by Chambers. Please note that You must complain to the Legal Ombudsman either within six years of your barrister’s actions/failure to act, or no later than three years after you should reasonably have known there were grounds to complain. You must also complain to the Legal Ombudsman within six months of receiving your barrister’s final response to your complaint.” You can write to them at: Legal Ombudsman PO Box 6806, Wolverhampton WV1 9WJ Telephone number: 0300 555 0333 Email: enquiries@legalombudsman.org.uk More information about the Legal Ombudsman is available on their website : http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/ The Ombudsman’s website of decisions during the last 12 months, showing against whom the Ombudsman has made any ruling, or any decision requiring a remedy, is available at Ombudsman decision data | Legal Ombudsman Not afraid of difficult cases Why not call and ask to speak to Sarah to find out what she can do for you? That case you hate in the bottom of your cupboard, we know it's there. Sarah can help. Contact Sarah Robson Taekwondo World Championships 2023 Sarah's own club attended the 2023 Taekwondo World Championships and came back with 22 new World Champions! Total medal count: 22 Gold medals, 17 Silver medals and 20 Bronze medals. Oh, and her own instructor retains his title as the World Champion too. Not all Black Belt Barristers can say this. Sarah spoke at the ACL Costs Conference in Manchester on "Black Belt Court Craft". She ended the entertaining talk with a board break. Kevin Latham was not injured in the making of this talk.

About Sarah Robson Barrister - Black Belt Barrister - Fixed Costs Specialist. Article in Counsel Magazine about being a black belt barrister. Newspaper interview with The Sun regarding Tyson Fury and liability orders. Geographical Areas for in person hearings - based in the East Midlands, she covers Norwich to Southampton, Cardiff to York, Bristol to Liverpool. 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.

Exceptional Circumstances Costs cases under CPR 45.29J - there is limited case law on exceptional circumstances costs, but Sarah Robson has gathered them all together here for you. Including Ferri v Gill, Jackson v Barfoot Farms, Crompton v Meadowcroft, Lloyd v 2 Sisters Poultry, Baker v Flynn, West v Olakanpo [2020] EWHC 3830 (QB). Exceptional Circumstances Costs - CPR 45.29J (now CPR 45x.29J) Ferri v Gill [2019[ EWHC 952 (QB) (Considered what the basket of cases was in a CPR 45.29J application, noted the test was a high bar) Jackson v Barfoot Farms DJ Jackson, Canterbury County Court, 29th Nov 2017 (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 c ircumstances 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 NB only the first instance judgment is available West v Ol akanpo [2020] EWHC 3830 (QB) (Exceptional circumstances costs awarded at first instance for fundamental dishonesty, overturned on appeal as evidence not tested in cross-examination) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index Search the site here:

Soft Tissue Injury Claims in the MOJ Portal. Case law on para 7.8B of the MOJ RTA Portal Protocol concerning disclosure of multiple reports where the case is a soft tissue injury claim. Soft Tissue Injuries Claims Mason v Laing HHJ Gosnell, Bradford CC, 20.01.20 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) The High Court held that where the reports were served together, the sanction was costs, not the admissibility of the report. Moesaid v Calder DDJ Kube, Manchester CC, 27th August 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. Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index Search the site here:

Sarah Robson gathers together case law on how courts have dealt with individual heads of loss which have been agreed within the MOJ Portal Process, showing the difference made when the claim is in the portal, leaves the portal or what stage the claim is at Individual Heads of Loss in the MOJ Portals 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) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index Search the site here:

Case law on SIIIA CPR 45 costs, cases which have started in the MOJ Portal but then left. Old SIIIA CPR 45x Fixed costs on leaving the Portal Cases which leave the portals are still subject to the old fixed costs regime under SIIIA of CPR 45x. An x is used after CPR 45 following the convention in the White Book to denote these are the old rules albeit they are still in force for some claims. Attersley v UK Insurance Ltd [2025] EWHC 884 (KB) (When a Part 36 offer is made before a claim is allocated to the multi-track, but accepted after allocation, the effect of the allocation is retrospective and thus open costs apply) 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, 13.07.20 (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) Singh v Ajaz HHJ Denyer QC, Bristol CC, 27th Sept 2016 (A claim which partly settles in the Portal and then leaves is subject to SIIIA fixed costs in all cases, even small claims) 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 v 5 Ors DJ Pollard, Brighton CC, 15.02.17 (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) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index Search the site here:

Other cases by Sarah Robson Barrister - including McNiven v Walsh on premature issue, Harwood v Kapek on miscellaneous expenses, Alrahi v Ellis on breach of the PI pre-action protocol, Ghattaorya v Bailey on miscellaneous expenses, Pathak v Collins on premature issue, R on hte Application of Newham LBC v Stratford Magistrates' Court [2008] EWHC 125 (Admin) [2008] All ER (D) 17 (Jan) [2008] RA 108, 173 JP 2008, Jamil v Harling on pleading unsupported head of loss, Smith v Irving on prem issue Other Reported Cases In addition to many cases reported on the All England Law Reports, Bailii, Current Law, Kemp & Kemp and Lawtel, Sarah has the following reported cases: Please see 'Index Portal & Fixed costs Cases' for details of Fixed Costs cases McNiven v Walsh (2011) LTLPI 26/1/2012 Sarah successfully argued premature issue and breach of the personal injury pre-action protocol/practice direction on pre-action conduct in this non- MOJ Portal disposal case. The claimant served a medical report pre-issue detailing one set of injuries/loss of amenity, but shortly before trial served a witness statement extending some of the symptoms, an extending the loss of amenity, thereby putting the defendant's part 36 offer at risk. In a reserved judgment, the judge held this was a clear breach of the personal injury pre-action protocol as well as not in compliance with the Practice Direction on pre-action conduct. He found that this was premature issue because the claimant's solicitors had not taken adequate instructions pre-issue, and they had not provided the defendant with sufficient information to enable the defendant to make a protective offer. The claimant was restricted to predictive costs and was ordered to pay all the defendant's costs. Harwood v Kapek (2010) LTLPI 21/7/2010 Sarah was defending in this personal injury disposal case in front of HHJ Harrington. C sought to recover £50 miscellaneous expenses. However, the court accepted Sarah's submissions that the claim for miscellaneous expenses should be disallowed in its entirety, confirming the lower judge's decision on this point in Ghattaorya v Bailey (below). The judge added that it was 'only common sense that sums should be particularised and that as the round figures referred to in the witness statements were fairly general, such an award should not be made.' This is an important decision for defendants - particularly when defending close part 36 offers, as reducing special damages can be the key to success. Instructed by Judith Hartley (now Judith Hall) of Ashton Morton Slack (now Horwich Farrelly LLP Sheffield.) Alrahi v Ellis (2009) LTLPI 04/06/2010 Sarah was defending in this personal injury disposal case. Whilst the defendant had beaten their pre-issue part 36 offer, she also argued the claimant should not get all their predictive costs because of their failure to follow the pre-action protocol. (Pre-issue, the claimant had only made 2 highly unrealistic offers which was not ‘negotiation’ as required by the protocol, further C had failed to supply evidence in support of some of the specials. Jamil v Harling (2007) LTLPI 18/3/2008 considered.) The judge agreed and reduced the claimant's costs to 2/3rds of the profit costs allowable under the predictive fees regime, plus the medical disbursements. The defendant was also awarded interest on their costs at 8%. This decision shows that where there is a breach of the pre-action protocol, the judge has a wide range of cost sanctions available even where a defendant has beaten their offer and the starting position in practice is for C to get predictive costs. Instructed by Graham Isaacs of Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP Manchester (now of Hill Dickinson LLP.) Ghattaorya v Bailey (2009) LTLPI 05/10/2009 Sarah was again defending in this personal injury disposal case. The claimant claimed for a 24 - 38 month neck and lumbar spine whiplash injury, with a 2 years travel anxiety. However, the court found the evidence of the claimant to be extremely unsatisfactory. The court awarded for a 6-months neck injury, disallowing the claim for the lumbar spine and all specials relating to the lumbar spine. The court also disallowed the claim for miscellaneous expenses in its entirety, noting that the cost of telephone calls was relatively low nowadays. The judge commented that claiming for miscellaneous expenses was a bad habit claimant solicitors had got into. Instructed by Patrick McCarthy of Horwich Farrelly Solicitors, Manchester. Pathak v Collins Stafford County Court LTLPI 27/3/2009 In a personal injury disposal case, Sarah successfully argued that the winning claimant should not be entitled to any costs. The claimant suffered a 4 month cervical spine whiplash injury. Prior to the issue of proceedings, the claimant had made a global Pt 36 offer in the sum of £2,362.35 and the defendant had made a global Pt 36 offer in the sum of £1,900. The defendant beat her offer. Sarah successfully argued that the claimant’s single pre-issue offer was highly unrealistic (approx £2,000 for generals for a bare 4-month whiplash) and therefore the claimant had failed to comply with the pre-action protocol by not entering into any genuine negotiations. She further contended that to further the over-riding objective, the court had to disallow all the claimant’s costs because to allow even predictive costs would give the claimant what they would have received had the protocol been complied with. The judge held that the claimant’s offer was wholly unrealistic and they had not complied with the rules and pre-action protocol wholeheartedly. The claimant could not recover her costs for up to 21 days after D’s offer, which would normally apply, nor even predictive costs, but only the medical report disbursement. This was because of the claimant’s unrealistic stance pre-issue on a bare four-month whiplash and her failure to comply with the protocol. Also, her costs schedule was, on any view, inflated. Yvonne Hazel Painting v University of Oxford (2005) [2005] EWCA Civ 161, Haywood v Haywood (2006) LTLPI 2/6/2006, Smith v Chantelle Irving (2006) LTLPI 26/2/2007, Mark Chatburn v Spicer (2007) LTLPI 19/6/2007 and Jamil v Harling (2007) LTLPI 18/3/2008 considered. Instructed by Graham Isaacs, Berrymans Lace Mawer Solicitors, Manchester (now of Hill Dickinson LLP.) R (on the application of Newham London Borough Council) v Stratford Magistrates' Court [2008] EWHC 125 (Admin), [2008] All ER (D) 17 (Jan) [2008] RA 108, 173 JP 30 2008 On judicial review Sarah successfully argued in the RCJ that the Magistrates’ Court had erred in setting aside liability orders which had been made 2½ - 5½ years earlier. The lower court should have had regard to the principle of finality of litigation; if a defendant's case was a liability order should be set aside and the delay in applying was because he had only very recently learnt of its existence, the court had to investigate how long that notice was. It was insufficient to say it would be in the interests of justice to set aside a liability order. Postscript: The matter was re-listed by the Magistrates. The Magistrates Court found that Mr Dublin had failed to make his application sufficiently promptly from when he had knowledge of the liability orders. Instructed by Robert Taylor, Barclay Taylor Solicitors, London. Jamil v Harling (2007) LTLPI 18/3/2008 Sarah successfully resisted an application by the claimant to accept the defendant’s payment in out of time, whilst still retaining Pt 36 costs protection. Also the claimant advanced a head of claim for which there was no evidence. The judge held the solicitors for the claimant should have come off the record once it became apparent they could not support this head of claim. Sarah successfully argued the claimant should not recover any costs because of their poor conduct. The court ordered the claimant was not entitled to any costs or disbursements, not even up to 21 days before the defendant’s payment in, and the claimant had to pay all the defendant’s costs. Instructed by Philip Dearden, Ashton Morton Slack, Sheffield (Now part of Horwich Farrelly.) Smith v Chantelle Irving (2006) LTLPI 26/2/2007 Sarah successfully argued no costs should be awarded to the successful claimant in a disposal hearing because of the conduct of the claimant’s solicitors. The court held the claimant’s solicitors had grossly over-valued the claim and failed to enter into real negotiations having only made one unrealistic offer before issue. Further, the claimant’s costs were exaggerated and difficult to justify. The court ordered a partner from the claimant’s solicitors to file and serve a witness statement explaining their conduct to the judge. Instructed by Philip Dearden, Ashton Morton Slack, Sheffield (Now part of Horwich Farrelly.) Search the site here:

Cases on the interplay of Part 36 offers and cases which are subject to fixed ex portal SIIIA CPR 45 costs 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 Search the site here:

Cases which discuss where CPR 45.24 can be applied, including the key point established, a short summary of the case and a copy of the full judgment. When CPR 45x.24 (now CPR 45.35) can be applied Brown v Ezeugwa HHJ Simpkiss (Designated Circuit Judge) with DJ Lethem (Regional Costs Judge) as assessor Tunbridge Wells CC, 23rd Jan 2014 (First Tier Appeal - Fixed costs can be awarded on assessment; not limited to when order for costs made/agreed) Davies v Greenway Master Simmons, SCCO, 30th October 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 (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 September 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)) The Claimant indicated they were going to appeal, but ultimately did not do so Patel v Fortis Recorder Morgan, Leicester CC, 5th Dec 2011 (The court held that CPR 45.24 applied to restrict the Claimant to no more than Portal costs where they had left the Portal unreasonably.) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index Search the site here:

Case law on the Status of Portal Admissions within that claim, within a counter-claim, outside of that claim, brought by employers insurers, etc. 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 Search the site here:

TRACK ATTACK! You've heard about the intermediate track, the fast track and multi track - but have you heard about Track Attack? This year's fast-paced action game is faster than a Christmas cracker pull and deadlier than a stray mince pie. Outrun, outgun, outwit and outshine your rivals to rule the rails and rise to leaderboard greatness. Its kill or be killed. Do you have what it takes to sleigh in Track Attack? Christmas Game Faster than a Christmas cracker pull, and deadlier than a stray mince pie. Outrun, outgun, outwit and outshine your rivals to rule the rails and rise to leader-board greatness. Do you have what it takes to sleigh in Track Attack? What is Track Attack? You've heard about the intermediate, fast, multi and even small claims tracks. But none are as much fun as the tracks in Track Attack. Speed around the snowy tracks and shoot your opponents with your deadly mince pies. It's kill or be killed! Track 'em, attack 'em and leave 'em in your steam. Fast tracks, big blasts and no brakes. (Sorry HSE about that last bit.) Oh yeah, and just to reflect litigation risk, the occasional train will randomly fly off the tracks - so be quick! How to Play Controls A - Left D - Right W - Up S - Down Or use the arrow buttons: < - Left > - Right /\ - Up v - Down Space bar - shoot your deadly mince pie! Play here When you're done, why not browse through the fixed costs cases on here - see the Index or use the search function to see if there's a case or two you can use. I am particularly keen to get any judgments on the new Oct 23+ expanded fixed costs, so if you get any - reported or not - please do send them to me! Thank you. Search the site here: