Search Results

Miscellaneous fixed costs cases including Montreal Convention claims, Portal Interim payments, Offers of zero and how to treat cases where a range of prognosis is given. 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) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index 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:

Prohibition on the use of hindsight and speculation, what would have happened anyway, for cases in the MOJ Portal Cannot use Hindsight or Speculation Raja v Day & MIB HHJ Gregory, Liverpool CC, 2nd Mar 2015 (Cannot take into account would have left the Portal anyway) Tennant v Cottrell DJ Jenkinson, Liverpool CC, 11th Dec 2014 (Cannot change reason for leaving, nor retrospectively justify reason) Dawrant v Part & Parcel Network Ltd HHJ Parker, Liverpool CC, 28th April 2016 Sitting with Regional Costs Judge Jenkinson, as Assessor (First Tier Appeal - Cannot use hindsight when a case has left the Portal) Ryan v Hackett [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) 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 leaving the MOJ Portals and the cost consequences which follow. Includes Unreasonable Exit, Where a judge removed the claim from the Portal. minor technical breaches only, total failure to use the Portal. 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 Oct 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) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index Search the site here:

Costs awarded under CPR 45.29J for exceptional circumstances in SIIIA CPR 45 fixed costs. Key Point SIIIA Exceptional Circumstances Costs awarded under CPR 45.29J Lloyd v 2 Sisters Poultry Ltd HHJ Howells, Mold County Court, 29th Jan 2019 This was an appeal in a SIIIA case where the lower court had found exceptional circumstances and awarded costs under CPR 45.29J. On appeal the court considered the swings and roundabouts nature of fixed costs, but found the lower court had correctly weighed all the relevant issues in the balance, and that decision could not be faulted. The claim arose from a personal injury accident at the Claimant's place of employment. Liability was not disputed. Initially the claim began relying on one medical report, but a subsequent report gave a much gloomier picture and indicated the Claimant had a permanent injury and would be disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The appeal court noted at [13] that the lower court's attention had been drawn to the extensive work carried out, with the solicitor correspondence running to some 63 pages with little padding, the schedule of special damages alone amounting to over £71,500 which was 27 pages long, a detailed Ogden 7 calculations for future loss of earnings, an alternative Billet approach with a witness statement from the Claimant running to 16 pages dealing in detail with the Claimant's pre-existing medical conditions, current conditions, education, employment, need for care and assistance - all of which was relevant to the future loss of earnings and Ogden/Billet calculations. At [17-18] the court considered Hislop v Perde , and noted how LJ Coulson had 'uncoupled' the link between the causation of increased costs and the award of exceptional circumstances costs there. HHJ Howells noted that the lower court had taken all the relevant factors into account, particularly the permanent disability and the Ogden calculations, but also the value of the claim, and concluded they were appropriate factors for the court to consider made this case exceptional for the test in CPR 45.29J. The appeal was dismissed and the Claimant kept their award of open costs. This case is unusual in that it is one of only two cases (the other being Jackson v Barfoot Farms ) I am aware of where non-fixed costs have been awarded under CPR 45.29J. In both cases, the Claimant suffered significant and permanent injuries. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

To book counsel for a hearing or for drafting, please use this page. Contact / Book Counsel To enquire if counsel is available, please complete this form and we will get back to you shortly. Fee Earner's name* Name of Solicitor's Firm* Email Address* Do you require an Advice/Drafting?* Hearing Only Hearing and Advice/Drafting Advice/Drafting Only Name of Court (leave blank if drafting only) Date of Hearing Time and Estimated Length of Hearing Details of Instruction* SUBMIT Chambers' Telephone Number 0800 634 9650 From outside the UK: +44 (0)191 580 0237 Professional clients will be provided with Sarah's mobile number directly. Members of the General Public should note that Sarah Robson cannot advise them directly; she is not Direct Access qualified . They should see a solicitor. Email email@sarahrobsonbarrister.co.uk Linked In uk.linkedin.com/in/sarahrobsonbarrister Blue Sky https://bsky.app/profile/sarahrobsonbarrister.co.uk Mastodon @Portal_Queen@c.im (@Portal_Queen@c.im) Postal Address Please do not post papers to the chambers address. Professional clients will be provided with Sarah Robson's postal address directly. Document Exchange Please note that Sarah Robson is no longer on the document exchange as of November 2022 . X (Twitter) @Portal_Queen Sarah Robson is no longer active on Twitter

Moesaid v Calder Where a subsequent report took the claim out of the definition of soft tissue injury claim, it did not matter WHEN or in WHICH ORDER the reports were disclosed, the special rules on soft tissue injuries did not apply. Key Point The special rules on Soft Tissue Injury Claims do not apply once a subsequent report takes the claim out of being a soft tissue injury claim, irrespective of when the reports were disclosed Moesaid v Calder DDJ Kube, Manchester CC, 27th August 2021 The Claimant disclosed a GP report, then started Stage 2 of the MOJ Portal and disclosed both reports with the Stage 2 pack. Damages were settled without a hearing. D argued that para 7.8A of the RTA Portal Protocol required the Claimant to disclose the first report before obtaining the second report. C argued that the rules only required that the first report be disclosed before the second report is disclosed. In any event, C argued that the claim was not a soft tissue injury claim so the special rules in RTA Protocol cases did not apply to this claim. D argued that the case only ceased to be a soft tissue injury claim on the receipt of the second report, and thus if the second report was inadmissible because it had not been disclosed in accordance with the rules then the claim remained a soft tissue injury claim. The court found that this was a soft tissue injury claim and therefore the special rules in 7.8A did not apply to this claim. It therefore did not need to go on and decide if the second report had been disclosed in accordance with the rules. Instructed by Steven Sherlock, Bespoke Costs Ltd Click here for judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

HHJ Wood QC, Chester CC, 22nd January 2016. Individual heads of loss agreed in the Portal are binding whilst the case remains in the Portal, overturning Bushell v Parry and upholding Bewicke-Copley v Ibeh Key Points Agreements on individual heads of loss are binding at Stage 2 and (Obiter) Portal settlements on complete claims are binding to the World Maddocks v Lyne HHJ Wood QC, Chester CC, 22nd January 2016 Parties agreed some individual heads of loss during Stage 2, but at the Stage 3 hearing the Claimant re-opened them, which the judge allowed. The Defendant appealed, arguing that agreements reached in the Portal on individual heads of were binding. The Defendant argued how the a Stage 3 hearing was defined as a hearing to determine items which remained in dispute. The Claimant argued that the wording of the rules only referred to 'offer' in the singular. The Defendant relied on Bewicke-Copley v Ibeh which said they are, and the Claimant relied on Bushell v Parry which said they were not. Permission to appeal, in some delicious irony, was given to the Defendants by HHJ Gregory, who had decided the Bushell case. In a long and reserved judgment, HHJ Wood QC held that where a claim remained in the Portal, as here, those items agreed at Stage 2 would be binding on both parties except in very exceptional cases. The judge went on to find, obiter, that if the matter left the Portal, then individual heads of loss were not binding, although the judgment notes that no argument was heard on this point. The court also went on to find, again obiter, that if all heads of loss were agreed in the Portal then it was binding on the world. Whilst confirming the original position as found in Bewicke-Copley v Ibeh , this decision also resolved the dispute between the inconsistent decisions of Ullah v Jon and Malak v Nasim , on whether admissions in the Portal are binding outside of that Portal claim where there is no judgment, by confirming that where settlement is reached on all heads of loss that the agreement is binding on the world, it does not require a judgment to be binding. That point was then confirmed, ratio, 10 months later in the appeal decision of Chimel v Chibwana & Williams . Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Luvin v Ageas Insurance Ltd - DJ Doyle, Birkenhead CC, 17th September 2015 - this case sets out the rules and procedure on interim payments in the Portal. Key Point A stay is an essential pre-requisite for an interim payment Luvin v Ageas Insurance Ltd DJ Doyle, Birkenhead CC, 17th Sept 2015 The Claimant solicitors sought an interim payment in the Portal and £1013.50 was paid. The Claimant wanted more, but the Defendant would not agree. The Claimant therefore removed the claim from the Portal and applied for a further interim payment in Part 7 proceedings. If a Claimant leaves the Portal because they disagree with the amount of any interim payment the Defendant offers, they may leave the Portal to issue Part 7 proceedings and seek an interim payment in the Part 7 proceedings. However to do so puts them at a costs risk, because if they do not secure an order for an interim payment for more than the sum which the Defendant offered in the Portal, then they can be restricted to Portal costs. The court found that requesting a stay was a pre-requisite of applying for an interim payment. The Claimant had not done so, and therefore they were not entitled to request an interim payment in the Portal. Therefore the Claimant's decision to leave the Portal was unreasonable. The Claimant was restricted to Portal costs. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Castle v Andrews & Dickens Ltd DJ Doyle, Birkenhead CC, 21st Nov 2019. When is a portal offer not a portal offer? Protocol offers remain open for acceptance until withdrawn, even after Part 7 proceedings have been issued, but not all offers made in the portal are Protocol offers. Key Point Protocol offers remain open for acceptance until withdrawn, even after Part 7 proceedings have been issued, but not all offers made in the portal are Protocol offers Castle v Andrews & Dickens Ltd DJ Doyle, Birkenhead CC, 21st Nov 2019 This claim had started in the MOJ RTA Portal butPart 7 proceedings were issued. Later the Defendant sought to accept the Claimant's Portal offer, but the Claimant argued that their offer was no longer available for acceptance, distinguishing Purcell v McGarry and Akinroyde v EUI. The court found that there was some conflation in previous cases between a Stage 2 portal offer and a Protocol offer, noting that a Protocol offer was a formal term with various cost consequences. Per CPR 36.25 defines a Protocol offer as one set out in the Court Proceedings Pack (Part B) form, and CPR 36.20(8) also converts a defendant's Stage 2 offer to a Protocol offer if a claim leaves the portal before Stage 3 is commenced. Protocol offers were open for acceptance after claims left the portal, whilst Stage 2 offers were not. Otherwise in a case where a claimant wanted to bring in vehicle related damages at the end of Stage 2 per 7.52 of the portal protocol, a defendant could fail to make an offer in Stage 2 causing the claim to leave the portal before the claimant could seek their vehicle related damages in the portal, and then accept the claimant's first Portal offer and not have to pay anything for vehicle related damages at all. The court held this could not be what was intended. Click here for a copy of a note of Judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Hislop v Perde [2018] EWCA Civ 1726 - Late acceptance of a Part 36 offer in SIIIA CPR 45 Fixed Costs. At [44] the court said the general rule (r.36.13, old rule r.36.10) is not preserved by the rule applicable to fixed costs cases (r.36.20, old rule r.36.10A). Instead, r.36.20 makes plain that it is the only rule which applies to the costs consequences of acceptance of a Part 36 offer in fixed costs cases. It preserves no part of the general rule set out in r.36.13. Key Point Late acceptance of a Part 36 offer in SIIIA CPR 45 Fixed Costs Hislop v Perde;Kaur v Committee (for the time being) of Ramgarhia Board Leicester [2018] EWCA Civ 1726 Costs consequences of acceptance of a Part 36 offer are prescribed in CPR 36.13. However, not when a claim is governed by SIIIA, i.e. it was previously in the Portal, because CPR 36.20 operates INSTEAD not as well as 36.13. CPR 36.20 does not disapply fixed costs where there has been late acceptance. CPR 45.29J costs are still available but are unaffected by late acceptance alone. At para 44 of the judgment it says: Whilst the general rule dealing with costs consequences following judgment (r.36.17) is expressly preserved by the particular rule relating to the fixed costs regime (r.36.21), that is not the position in relation to the rules relating to the costs consequences of accepting Part 36 offers before trial. For that situation, the general rule (r.36.13, old rule r.36.10) is not preserved by the rule applicable to fixed costs cases (r.36.20, old rule r.36.10A). Instead, r.36.20 makes plain that it is the only rule which applies to the costs consequences of acceptance of a Part 36 offer in fixed costs cases. It preserves no part of the general rule set out in r.36.13. 45. What is more, r.36.13 itself says that it is “subject to” r.36.20 which, because that rule applies to fixed costs cases and r.36.13 does not, also leads to the conclusion that r.36.13 does not apply to fixed costs cases. Where (without more) a general rule is made ‘subject to’ a specific rule that governs a particular class of case then, in that class of case (here, those subject to fixed costs), it will be the specific rule that applies, not the general rule (see Solomon). 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

Case law on the new expanded fixed costs regime from October 2023. Including Asmat Bi v Tesco Underwriting Ltd. Oct 23 New Fixed Costs Cases Asmat Bi v Tesco Underwriting Ltd When settled pre-Oct 23 pre proceedings, which costs apply Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index