Search Results

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

Sarah Robson is not a Direct Access qualified barrister. Members of the public will have to get a solicitor to instruct her. This page tells you what your solicitor can do for you if you get a Liability Order against you which you dispute - how to apply to set it aside - appeal - and how to "Check, Challenge, Appeal" non-domestic rates in the Valuation Tribunal. Act fast - you have days or weeks in which to apply to set aside a liablity order. Sarah Robson Barrister Fixed Costs Specialist Call now on 0800 634 9650 Liability Orders Members of the General Public are reminded that they should see a SOLICITOR if they have a problem with a liability order. Sarah Robson cannot speak to members of the public directly. How to Appeal a Liability Order Challenge liability to pay in the Valuation Tribunal The Valuation Tribunal The Valuation Tribunal is the place to dispute liability for non-domestic or business rates. See their website for more details at: www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk Can I Appeal a Liability Order? I am often asked if liability orders can be appealed. Yes you can, but that is an expensive route and the timescales are tiny. If you believe the liability order should not have been made in the first place, and/or it was made in error, then it would be far cheaper instead to apply to set it aside - but you need to act really fast. Challenges to liability to pay non-domestic rates are often better brought in the Valuation Tribunal . The secret to successfully challenging a liability order is to act fast as soon as you receive a summons or think a liability order may have been made. It is not unlike applying to set aside a statutory demand when it comes to time running. Write to the court and ask for a hearing to consider your application to set the liability order aside. Setting Aside Liability Orders Magistrates are creatures of statute, and do not have a statutory power to re-open civil cases, even when they know they have made an error! This used to mean that the only way to challenge a liability order was to judicially review the order - a highly expensive process. A common law power to re-open a civil case by magistrates developed in case law, which is unusual for civil matters in the largely criminal court of the magistrates. This was set out in Liverpool City Council v Pleroma Distribution Ltd [2002] EWHC 2467 (Admin) (“Plemora”) as where there had been a substantial procedural defect, where it has done something which is unlawful and in excess of its jurisdiction. R (on the application of Newham London Borough Council) v Stratford Magistrates' Court & Selwyn Dublin R (on the application of Newham London Borough Council) v Stratford Magistrates' Court & Selwyn Dublin (Interested Party) [2008] EWHC 125 (Admin), [2008] RA 108, [2008] All ER (D) 17 (Jan) [2008] In this case, Dublin claimed he had not been aware of the proceedings. He did not submit nor prove that order was unlawful or made in excess of jurisdiction, or in ignorance of a significant fact concerning their procedure of which the justices should have been aware, as required in Brighton & Hove. The District Judge allowed the application because he had an ‘arguable case’. The council applied to Judicially Review the decision of the District Judge to set aside the liability order. At Judicial Review Sarah successfully argued that was the wrong test. The test to set aside a liability order was not simply where it would be reasonable and in the interests of justice to do so – such a test would be too wide and vague. A liability order cannot be overturned simply by showing an arguable case. The court must be satisfied: the order was made as a result of a substantial procedural error, defect or mishap, that there was both a genuine and dispute as to that liability, and that the application was made promptly. Finding ‘some doubt’ over the original decisions does not satisfy the correct test, neither would allegations as to non-receipt of summonses, etc, even if proved. However he went on to say: “If non-attendance at a hearing because of a traffic accident would be sufficient to satisfy that criterion, I find it difficult to see why non-receipt of the notice of the hearing might not also qualify.” How the power to set aside developed In R (Brighton and Hove City Council) v Brighton and Hove Justices [2004] EWHC 1980 (Admin) (“Brighton & Hove”), HHJ Burnton said it was important to note that the power Maurice Kay J held to exist in Plemora to set aside a liability order could not be exercised simply where the defendant disputed his liability. There must be a substantial defect, and not on the part of the defendant. Further, in Camberwell, at para 37, LJ Waller expressed disquiet over the Plemora case, saying it was not free from doubt. Further, at para 34, HHJ Burnton stated the proper consideration was: “whether there had been any procedural defect in the proceedings that led to making of the liability orders, and whether (the defendant) had applied promptly for them to be set aside after learning they had been made.” In Brighton & Hove, HHJ Burnton (at para 31) held that it would be exceptional to set aside a liability order, something to be undertaken cautiously. Further (para 37) he stressed the importance of the need for finality in proceedings for liability orders, and how it is inappropriate to re-open orders simply where it would be reasonable and in the interests of justice to do so – that test was too wide and vague. HHJ Burnton further held that a court should not set aside a liability order unless it is satisfied that there is a genuine and arguable dispute as to the defendant’s liability for the rates in question, AND a. the order was made as a result of a substantial procedural error, defect or mishap. (The court must be satisfied that the order was unlawful or made in excess of jurisdiction, or in ignorance of a significant fact concerning their procedure of which the justices should have been aware) AND b. the application to the justices for the order to be set aside is made promptly after the defendant learns that it has been made or has notice that an order may have been made. Prompt action should be taken within a matter of days or at most a very few weeks, not months, and certainly not as much as a year, (para 33). (Brighton and Hove City Council) v Brighton and Hove Justices [2004] EWHC 1980 (Admin) When does time start to run? Time starts to run from constructive notice that an order may have been made Prompt Application Those wishing to apply to set aside a liability order should note that as a matter of principle for all challenges to administrative and judicial decisions, the application should be made promptly. Time starts to run from the date of the order, or from when a defendant has notice or constructive notice of the order. Constructive notice of a liability order can be deemed from as little as notice of the issue of a summons with no notice of the actual outcome – para 33 Brighton & Hove; “the jurisdiction to reopen a liability order will be unavailable to a defendant who delays in circumstances in which he has notice that an order may have been made, although he had not received a copy or been informed that an order has been made." Those who wish to challenge a finding of liability to pay council tax will be pleased to note that there is no time limit for appealing to the council concerned, providing they have not already given a decision notice or 'final decision'.

Index of Cases to do with all types of Fixed and Portal costs, grouped by topics, with case summaries and link to judgments where available. Including Asmat Bi v Tesco Underwriting Ltd on the October 23 extention to fixed costs Index Fixed Costs Cases List of Topics New Fixed Costs cases from Oct 2023+ Harm, abuse or neglect - Vulnerable exception 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 Search the site here: Oct 23+ New Fixed Costs Cases Asmat Bi v Tesco Underwriting Ltd HHJ Sephton KC, Manchester CC, August 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 Sokar Bek v Ali Simsek DJ Baldwin, Liverpool CC, 19th December 2024 Judgment Click here for a copy of the judgment This case concerned whether fixed recoverable costs (FRC) applied to a non-PI road traffic property damage claim that settled pre-issue by Part 36 before 1 October 2023, where Part 8 costs-only proceedings were issued after that date. The court held that FRC do apply. Construing the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2023, DJ Baldwin ruled that a claim becomes “a claim where proceedings are issued” if any proceedings are required to conclude it, including costs-only proceedings under CPR 46.14. Accordingly, where costs are not agreed and post-1 October 2023 costs-only proceedings are issued, the new FRC regime bites if otherwise applicable. There was no impermissible retrospectivity, because in pre-issue Part 36 settlements the claimant’s strict entitlement to costs only crystallises upon a court order in the costs-only proceedings. Acceptance of the Part 36 offer did not amount to contracting out of FRC, which would have required a clear and express agreement, and no exceptionality justified departure from fixed costs. The Executors of the Estate of Kenneth Collins v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police Costs Judge Whalan, SCCO, 23rd January 2026 Costs Judge Whalan held that fixed recoverable costs did not apply because the substantive claim against the police included an intentional tort within CPR 26.9(10)(e)(i): a pleaded claim for “wrongful interference with goods” necessarily encompassed conversion and/or trespass to chattels, and the destruction of the firearms was an intentional act, mandating multi-track allocation and excluding FRCs. The court further held that, absent that feature, FRCs would have applied under the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2023 because Part 8 costs-only proceedings issued after 1 October 2023 constitute a “claim” for transitional purposes, and that acceptance of a Part 36 offer does not amount to contracting out of the FRC regime. Judgment Click here for a copy of the judgment Exception for Claims for damages in relation to harm, abuse or neglect of or by children or vulnerable adults Scott v MOJ [2019] EWHC B13 (Costs) (Prisoner was not a vulnerable adult.) Leicester v Cameron HHJ Hedley, Leicester CC, 24.06.21 (Teacher injured by a pupil during a First Aid course) Lawal v London Borough of Southwark Dr Friston, SCCO, 16.12.22 (If the injury had been intentional then the protocol would be disapplied. If it was wholly unintended then Portal would apply.) Johnson v Choice Support [2025] EWHC 1020 (SCCO) Exception did not apply. (C was pushed by E who was vulnerable. The push was not harmful, and E had no intention to harm C, nor had any awareness that the push would harm C.) 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 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, 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) 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 & 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 Cottrell DJ Jenkinson, Liverpool CC, 11th December 2014 (Cannot change reason for leaving, nor retrospectively justify reason) Dawrant v Part & Parcel Network Ltd HHJ Parker, Liverpool CC, 28th Apr 2016 Sitting with Regional Costs Judge Jenkinson, as Assessor (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 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. (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 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 Nov 2016 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 Grant 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 HHJ Gore QC, Liverpool CC, Friday 7th Dec 2012 Portal offers are open for acceptance in Stage 3 Akinrodoye v Esure DJ Goodchild, Romford CC, 16th Feb 2015 Portal offers are open for acceptance even after Part 7 proceedings issued Ingrid Smith v Greater Manchester Buses South Ltd HHJ Main QC, Manchester CC, 17th Dec 2015 Protocol offers only remain open for acceptance after a claim leaves the Portal. Castle v Andrews & Dickens Ltd DJ Doyle, Birkenhead CC, 21st Nov 2019 (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 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 Chimel 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 F irst 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 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 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 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 evidence) 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.

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

< Back Rainforest Action Initiative 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

Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Yavuz & Ors [2017] EWHC 3088 (QB) (6 December 2017). The High Court considered if knowingly providing false statements in a CNF could amount to contempt. The Court noted cPR 32.14 and CPR 22.1 made it contempt to make a false statement certified by a statement of truth, but neither the Protocol nor PD8B mandated compliance, it merely expected compliance, and a requirement to comly was needed to find contempt. Key Point Considerations of Contempt over completion of CNF Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Yavuz & Ors [2017] EWHC 3088 (QB) (6 Dec 2017) The court here was considering whether or not to commit the defendants for contempt following this 'crash for cash' case. The court considered whether knowing providing false statements in a Claim Notification Form ("CNF"), forms which are electronically signed, and usually by the Claimant's solicitor, could amount to contempt. The court side-stepped the issue but noted that CPR 32.14 and 22.1 made it contempt to make a false statement in certain documents verified by a statement of truth. The court also noted that neither the Protocol nor PD8B mandated compliance, it merely 'expected' compliance, which was not the same as saying parties were required to comply, which was needed to find contempt. It thus seems likely that the Rules Committee will review the rules in this area. Watch this space! Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Dawrant v Part & Parcel Network HHJ Parker, Liverpool CC, 28th April 2016 - Sitting with Regional Costs Judge Jenkinson, as Assessor. The court held a court cannot use hindsight or speculation when awarding costs following a Portal breach - the test was on the facts as at the date of the breach. Key Point A court cannot use hindsight or speculation when awarding costs following a Portal breach - the test was on the facts as at the date of the breach Dawrant v Part & Parcel Network Ltd HHJ Parker, Liverpool CC, 28th Apr 2016 Sitting with Regional Costs Judge Jenkinson, as Assessor Here the Claimant failed to send a CNF, and the Defendant sought to limit the Claimant's costs to Portal costs, per CPR 45.24(2). At first instance the lower court declined to restrict the Claimant to Portal costs. The Defendant appealed, saying the judge had applied hindsight and speculated about what would have happened had the claim been brought in the Portal, relying on Raja v Day & MI B. On appeal it was held that the lower court had taken into account a number of issues which were irrelevant. In particular at [44] it was noted the lower court had considered that the Defendant had failed to admit liability and had failed to explain why quantum could not be agreed, at [45] that the Defendant had failed to file an acknowledgment of service, and at [46] had filed a long defence and applied for the matter to be allocated to track. Finally at [47] the judge found that there was evidence that had the matter been submitted in the Portal it may well have never reached Stage 2 because the Defendant had not admitted liability in Part 7 proceedings within the timescale required in the Portal. The appeal court held that the court engaged in clear speculation using the benefit of hindsight. At [48] the judge said: "This in my submission, is clear speculation using the benefit of hindsight and the deputy district judge was clearly asking herself the question, 'would it have made any difference if the Claimant had complied with the protocol and served a claim notification form on the defendant's insurer', and arriving at the answer no. She did not think that that would have made any difference and that was, in my judgment, dangerous speculation and she was wrong so to do." HHJ Parker went on to limit the Claimant 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

Payne v Scott DDJ Smedley, Birkenhead CC, 13th July 2015 Key Point A Claimant can still have caused a claim to leave the Portal under CPR 45.24(2) when they ask a judge to order it out and that judge does so Payne v Scott DDJ Smedley, Birkenhead CC, 13th July 2015 The Claimant claimed loss of earnings in the Portal but did not properly evidence that head of loss during Stage 2. At the start of the Stage 3 hearing, the Claimant asked the court to remove the claim from the Portal and place it into Part 7 proceedings, saying it was unsuitable and further evidence was required. The Defendant weakly objected. The judge duly ordered the claim out of the Portal and into Part 7 proceedings. The Defendant argued that the Claimant should be restricted to Portal costs under CPR 45.24(2)(b). However, the Claimant argued that they did not remove the claim from the Portal, the court ordered it out. The Defendant relied on Ilahi v Usman and Doyle v Manchester Audi , arguing that where a party chooses to take a step or omit to take a step, which causes a claim to leave the Portal, then they have chosen to remove the claim from the Portal. The judge was hesitant to find that the Claimant had acted unreasonably in circumstances where the Defendant had not really objected to the claim leaving the Portal. However, on balance he found that the Claimant had acted unreasonably, they had caused the claim to leave the Portal, and he did restrict the Claimant to Portal costs. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Key Point Key Point Common law Mistake does not apply in the MOJ Portal Protocol Draper v Newport DJ Baker, Birkenhead CC, 3rd September 2014 Here the only issue was whether common law mistake applied to cases in the Portal. The Claimant's solicitor accidentally accepted the Defendant's offer. She immediately rang the Defendant but was unable to get through to the correct person. She uploaded a letter to the Portal within half an hour to confirm that the offer had been accepted in error. The judge considered the nature of the Portal and went through the facts against the over-riding objective. He determined that it would fundamentally undermine the Portal if common law mistake was allowed to apply. The Claimant's solicitor simply should have been more careful. It has been interesting to see how often this first instance and non-binding decision has been followed. It took 4 years for anyone to bring the issue to first tier appeal in Fitton v Ageas. Interestingly both counsel in the later case of Harris v Brown submitted that the Claimant here did not know that a mistake had been made, and thus distinguished it. Unfortunately that is clearly wrong, as the Claimant here was well aware that they had made a mistake, as shown by them uploading the letter to say exactly that. Click here for a copy of the 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

HHJ Wood QC, Chester CC, 22nd January 2016 - Parties cannot renege on individual heads of loss agreed at Stage 2 except in exceptional circumstances, so long as the claim remains in the portal. Thus Agreements on individual heads of loss are binding at Stage 2. Also the court held (Obiter) that Portal settlements on complete claims are binding to the World. 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 Jan 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 Click here for a PDF copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Dickinson v Langford - Birkenhead CC, 14th February 2013 - Raising legal argument and offering zero for some heads of loss did not justify removal from Portal Key Point Raising legal argument and offering zero for some heads of loss did not justify removal from Portal Dickinson v Langford Birkenhead CC, 14th February 2013 Here the Claimant sought care as a head of loss. The Defendant offered zero for this and entered a full defence. The Claimant removed the claim from the Portal and issued Part 7 proceedings in response, claiming that given the dispute and the nature of the defence, the Portal was no longer suitable. However, the court found that the claim should have stayed in the Portal and restricted the Claimant 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