Search Results

Bewicke-Copley v Ibeh DJ Vincent, Oxford CC, 4th June 2015 Acceptance of individual heads of loss in the Portal is binding at Stage 3 There have been a few cases on this point since. See Bushell v Parry (first tier appeal) which held that agreement on individual heads of loss are not binding but the circumstances were odd, and Maddocks v Lyne (first tier appeal by DCJ) which held that they are binding in the Portal and mostly binding outside the Portal, Bewicke-Copley preferred over Bushell. Key Point Acceptance of individual heads of loss in the Portal is binding at Stage 3 Bewicke-Copley v Ibeh DJ Vincent, Oxford CC, 4th June 2015 The Defendant accepted the Claimant's offers for personal injury and pre-accident value, but not the claim for credit hire and storage. The Defendant sought further information about those heads of loss, but the Claimant responded by removing the claim from the Portal because it was 'too complex'. Part 7 proceedings were issued claiming for all heads of loss including those agreed in the Portal. The Defendant applied for judgment to be entered for those heads of loss already agreed in the Portal, and for the remaining heads of loss to be allocated to the small claims track. DJ Vincent (as she then was) held that individual heads of loss could be agreed in the Portal and that they were binding. There have been a few cases on this point since. See Bushell v Parry (first tier appeal) which held that agreement on individual heads of loss are not binding but the circumstances were odd, and Maddocks v Lyne (first tier appeal by DCJ) which held that they are binding in the Portal and mostly binding outside the Portal, Bewicke-Copley preferred over Bushell. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Case law on using the MOJ Portal Protocols - with the key point, a short summary and a copy of the judgment. Including LB Islington v Bourous [2022] EWCA Civ 1242, Wicks v Blair [2022] EWCA Civ 1242, Akram v Aviva HHJ Jarman QC, Wrexham CC, 29.09.21, Mulholland v Hughes HHJ Freedman, Newcastle CC, 18.09.15, Raja v Day HHJ Gregory, Liverpool CC, 02.03.15 and many other cases. Using the Portals MH Site Maintenance Services Ltd & Markerstudy Insurance Services Ltd v James Watson [2025] EWCA Civ 775 A court has the power to make orders in a Portal claim once Stage 3 Part 8 proceedings have been issued. 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. Wickes Building Supplies Ltd v Blair [2019] EWCA Civ 1934 The Court of Appeal considered whether objecting to the claimant's late witness statement, served just a couple of days after the end of Stage 2, was objecting to the claim under para 9.1 of PD 8B. At first instance the court had simply rejected the late statement. At first tier appeal the court found that the defendant was opposing the claim because the evidence was not provided under the relevant protocol. However, the Court of Appeal held the judge at first instance was correct, and quashed the first tier appeal decision. (1) Akram v Aviva Insurance Ltd and (2) Mahmood v Tillott HHJ Jarman QC, Wrexham CC, 29th Sept 2021 (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, 18th Sept 2015 (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, 1st Jun 2020 (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 DDJ Dawson, Birkenhead CC, 24th April 2012 (Multiple CNFs - how to deal.) 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 Birkenhead CC, DJ Campbell, 30th November 2016 (Unreasonable exit for non payment of tiny disbursement.) Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Yavuz & Ors [2017] EWHC 3088 (QB) (6 Dec 2017) (Contempt re completion of CNF.) David Grant v Dawn Meats (UK) [2018] EWCA Civ 2212 (Limitation, Stays and Service of a Portal Claim form.) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index Search the site here:

< Back Desert Wildlife Conservation This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Want to view and manage all your collections? Click on the Content Manager button in the Add panel on the left. Here, you can make changes to your content, add new fields, create dynamic pages and more. You can create as many collections as you need. Your collection is already set up for you with fields and content. Add your own, or import content from a CSV file. Add fields for any type of content you want to display, such as rich text, images, videos and more. You can also collect and store information from your site visitors using input elements like custom forms and fields. Be sure to click Sync after making changes in a collection, so visitors can see your newest content on your live site. Preview your site to check that all your elements are displaying content from the right collection fields. Power in Numbers 30 Programs 50 Locations 200 Volunteers Project Gallery Previous Next

Monteith v Carroll Making a pre-medical offer did not justify removing the claim from the Portal. The Claimant was restricted to Portal costs. Key Point Pre-Med offer does not justify Portal exit Monteith v Carroll Liverpool CC, 17th October 2012 The Defendant made a pre-med offer. The Claimant removed the claim from the Portal claiming they could not advise their client within the Portal as to whether they should accept the offer or not. The court held that was not a good reason to leave the Portal, and restricted the Claimant to Portal costs. Please note there is no copy of the judgment itself. Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Abdulmalik v Calder DJ Carter, Manchester CC, 2nd Feb 2022 - Soft Tissue Injury Claim. The time to consider whether a case was a soft tissue injury claim was on the facts (not evidence) when the second report was disclosed. Also there was no requirement for the first report to be disclosed before the second expert was instructed, only disclosed. HOWEVER just because reports were disclosed correctly did not mean costs would always follow. Key Points The time to consider whether a case was a soft tissue injury claim was on the facts (not evidence) when the second report was disclosed and There was no requirement for the first report to be disclosed before the second expert was instructed, only disclosed HOWEVER just because reports were disclosed correctly did not mean costs would always follow Abdulmalik v Calder DJ Carter, Manchester CC, 2nd Feb 2022 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 that the time to assess that was when the subsequent report was disclosed. At that stage in this case, the claim was no longer a soft tissue injury claim, and therefore the special rules did not have to be complied with. However, even if he was wrong on that the judge went on to consider what 7.8B actually required and he concluded that the rules only required the first report to be disclosed before the second was disclosed. There was nothing in the rules to support the contention held in Mason v Laing that the first report had to be disclosed before the second report was obtained/sought/instructed. The Defendant was refused permission to appeal. 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

Piotr Glazer v Nathan Reid DDJ Johnson, Liverpool CC, 2nd March 2012 - here the court held an offer of zero on one head of law was a valid offer in the MOJ Portal. Key Point An offer of zero is a valid offer in the Portal Piotr Glazer v Nathan Reid DDJ Johnson, Liverpool CC, 2nd March 2012 The Defendant made an offer of zero for one head of loss in the Portal. The Claimant removed the claim from the Portal, claiming that the Defendant had breached the Portal rules. When it came to costs the Claimant argued that the requirement to propose an amount for every head of damage (now para 7.41 RTA Protocol, 7.35 EL/PL Protocol) required the Defendant to propose a figure other than zero. They claimed that by offering zero, the Defendant was in breach of that requirement which justified their departure from the Portal. However, the court found that an offer of zero was a perfectly valid offer. To find otherwise would be to find that a Defendant would have to offer at least 1p for any head of loss claimed, however ludicrous it might be. That could not be right. Whilst an offer of zero might be perfectly valid as an offer on one head of loss, it is unclear whether the situation would be the same if every head of loss had an offer of zero made. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

DJ Woods, Watford CC, December 2014 NB now overturned by Chimel v Chibwana Key Point Portal admissions were not binding outside that claim SINCE OVERTURNED Malak v Nasim DJ Woods, Watford CC, December 2014 Here the issue was whether the claimant was bound by an admission which his insurers had made in the Portal on an entirely separate claim. The court found they were bound only within those same proceedings, not otherwise, rejecting the finding of Ullah v Jon . Please note that after this case was decided, the issue of whether Ullah v Jon or Malak v Nasim was correct was determined in the appeal of Chimel v Chibwana & Williams . The appellate court decided that Malak was wrongly decided. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

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:

The court held that you cannot raise anything in a Stage 3 MOJ Portal hearing which has not been raised in Stage 2. Offers in the MOJ Portal do not amount to admissions. Claimants have to repay over-payment of damages in Portal non-settlement payment. Key Point Neither party can raise anything at a Stage 3 hearing which has not been raised in Stage 2 Mulholland v Hughes HHJ Freedman, Newcastle CC, 18th Sept 2015 This case dealt with three different issues; the status of offers in the Portal, whether it is open to a Defendant to rely on matters not raised during Stage 2, whether a court can order repayment of the Stage 2 payments where the court later awards less than that sum. The common theme of all four appeals was that they were cases where the court awarded the Claimant less than the Defendants had offered and in three of those cases there was an overpayment which the Claimants were ordered to repay to the Defendants. The court held firstly that offers in the Portal were not the same as admissions, and thus they did not bind the Defendant in that the Defendant was able to argue for less than the sum they had offered. Secondly, the court held that a Defendant could not rely on arguments not raised during Stage 2 within Stage 3. Thirdly the court found that a court could order a repayment of an over-payment of a Stage 2 payment. Fourthly the court found that parties could not raise an issue in a Stage 3 hearing which had not been raised in Stage 2. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Birkenhead CC, DJ Campbell, 30th November 2016. Yes friend, they seriously litigated over £2.50p. Key Point Unreasonable to leave portal for technical non-compliance only Smith v Owen Birkenhead CC, DJ Campbell, 30th Nov 2016 Here the claimant removed the claim from the MOJ RTA Portal for of two disbursements, one for photographs and one for the DVLA disbursements. The issue was whether the Claimant had acted unreasonably in doing so. The disbursement for photographs was not agreed. The Defendant said as much and it was virtually common ground that in disputing the disbursement, saying why it was in dispute, then the Defendant was not in breach by failing to pay that. The main argument was on the non-payment of the DVLA disbursement, a mere £2.50. The Claimant relied on the case of Chisanga which had held it was reasonable to leave the Portal for non-payment of the DVLA disbursement. However, DJ Campbell disagreed, noting she had been a solicitor for 20 years and would have been appalled at the idea of anyone in her firm issuing proceedings simply because of a non payment of £2.50 which it was well known would easily be 'scooped up' to be paid when the final order was made. The court decided at [47] that whilst there was no obligation under the rules for a Claimant to check with a Defendant why the £2.50 had not been paid, it was incumbent on any solicitor acting reasonably to have queried where the £2.50 was. She confirmed the approach of DJ Peake in Kilby v Brown to act reasonably and enquire before issuing. Whilst she acknowledged this made her decision at odds with another judge at the same court, she reached this decision based on her interpretation of the rules and meant no criticism on the other judge. The Claimant had acted unreasonably in leaving the Portal, and would be 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

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

Williams v Secretary of State [2018] EWCA Civ 852. The Court of Appeal famously held that where CPR 45.24 could not be used, but the court could get to the same result otherwise by use of CPR 44. 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