Search Results

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:

Patel v Fortis - Recorder Morgan, Leicester CC, 5th December 2011 - Leaving the Portal for technical non-compliance only is not reasonable and Non-Portal CPRs have no application in Portal Protocol cases Key Points Leaving the Portal for technical non-compliance only is not reasonable and Non-Portal CPRs have no application in Portal Protocol cases Patel v Fortis Recorder Morgan, Leicester CC, 5th Dec 2011 The Claimant removed this case from the Portal because the Defendant had not sent an acknowledgement of the claim within 24 hours, which is a mandatory requirement. The Claimant then issued Part 7 proceedings, although the parties later settled quantum without a hearing. The issue was what costs should apply. The Defendant argued firstly that they had acknowledged the claim in time, but in the alternative, the claimant had acted unreasonably and should be restricted to Portal costs under the then CPR 45.36(2)(b)(i) (now CPR 45.35). The Defendant argued that whether the CNF was a claim form or either way, their Insurer Response sent 48 hours later (which it was accepted counted as an acknowledgement) was not late. The court held that the CPR rules on service did not apply to service of the CNF; the Portal was a highly stand-alone code and one could not simply import non-Portal CPRs into it. Thus the fact that the CNF had been sent after did not make any difference. The Portal rules required an acknowledgement to be sent the next day, whatever time of day the CNF had been sent. However, the court did find that the Claimant had acted unreasonably in leaving the Portal and issuing Part 7 proceedings. Whilst there was a breach, it was a technical breach only and made no real difference. If the Claimant solicitors had been genuinely concerned to see if their claim had been received, they could have checked by either looking on the Portal or contacting the Defendant, but they did nothing. The judge held that it was unreasonable to leave the Portal for a technical breach only, it was not reasonable, and he restricted the Claimant to Portal costs. The court also considered the application of CPR 45.36 (now CPR 45.24) as the matter had settled, so there was no judgment. The court had no difficulty in finding that the rule applied equally to cases which settled as well as to those where was given. there would be a lacuna in the rules and it would discourage settlement. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Tennant v Cottrell DJ Jenkinson, Liverpool CC, 11th December 2014 - you cannot change your reason for breach of Portal after the event, and there can be no 'Retrospective Justification' of an earlier Portal breach by what happened later. Key Points Cannot change reason for breach of Portal and there can be no 'Retrospective Justification' of an earlier Portal breach Tennant v Cottrell DJ Jenkinson, Liverpool CC, 11th December 2014 The Claimant removed this claim from the Portal when the Defendant made an offer of zero for one head of loss. Part 7 proceedings were issued in which the Defendant sought allocation to the fast track, and for the Claimant to attend for cross-examination. Costs went to Detailed Assessment. In Replies to Points of Dispute, the Claimant tried to argue for the first time that the claim had left the Portal because it was too complex, and pointed to the fact that the Defendant had sought to cross-examine the Claimant and allocate the claim. However, DJ Jenkinson found that the reason the Claimant had left the Portal was completely clear. That was set out in their letter at the time they left the Portal, stating they were doing so because the Defendant had offered zero on one head of loss. The judge said that you could not change your reason for leaving the Portal later, and there could be no argument that a claim 'would have left anyway'. o allow such an argument would be to allow a Claimant to 'retrospectively justify' their earlier unreasonable exit. He would not allow this. The Claimant was restricted to Portal costs. Claimants often try to argue that a claim 'would have left the Portal anyway'. However as this case makes clear, a party cannot change their reasons for leaving later, nor can they rely on anything which happened after a breach of the Portal when assessing whether they had acted unreasonably under CPR 45.24(2). Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Patel v Fortis - Recorder Morgan, Leicester CC, 5th December 2011. The first reported judgment on the Portal. Here the court held that Leaving the Portal for technical non-compliance only is not reasonable. Also that non-Portal CPRs have no application in Portal Protocol cases. Key Points Leaving the Portal for technical non-compliance only is not reasonable and Non-Portal CPRs have no application in Portal Protocol cases Patel v Fortis Recorder Morgan, Leicester CC, 5th December 2011 The Claimant removed this case from the Portal because the Defendant had not sent an acknowledgement of the claim within 24 hours, which is a mandatory requirement. The Claimant then issued Part 7 proceedings, although the parties later settled quantum without a hearing. The issue was what costs should apply. The Defendant argued firstly that they had acknowledged the claim in time, but in the alternative, the claimant had acted unreasonably and should be restricted to Portal costs under CPR 45.36(2)(b)(i) [now CPR 45.24(2)(b)(i)]. The Defendant argued that whether the CNF was a claim form or either way, their Insurer Response sent 48 hours later (which it was accepted counted as an acknowledgement) was not late. The court held that the CPR rules on service did not apply to service of the CNF; the Portal was a highly stand-alone code and one could not simply import non-Portal CPRs into it. Thus the fact that the CNF had been sent after did not make any difference. The Portal rules required an acknowledgement to be sent the next day, whatever time of day the CNF had been sent. However, the court did find that the Claimant had acted unreasonably in leaving the Portal and issuing Part 7 proceedings. Whilst there was a breach, it was a technical breach only and made no real difference. If the Claimant solicitors had been genuinely concerned to see if their claim had been received, they could have checked by either looking on the Portal or contacting the Defendant, but they did nothing. The judge held that it was unreasonable to leave the Portal for a technical breach only, it was not reasonable, and he restricted the Claimant to Portal costs. The court also considered the application of CPR 45.36 (now CPR 45.24) as the matter had settled, so there was no judgment. The court had no difficulty in finding that the rule applied equally to cases which settled as well as to those where was given. there would be a lacuna in the rules and it would discourage settlement. 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 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:

David Grant v Dawn Meats (UK) [2018] EWCA Civ 2212 Key Point A stay on a Portal claim meant that no procedural steps were to be taken, even service of a claim form David Grant v Dawn Meats (UK) [2018] EWCA Civ 2212 In this case, limitation arose before the parties had been able to complete all the steps of Stage 1 and Stage 2 in the Portal. In accordance with para 5.7 of the EL/PL Protocol, the Claimant issued stage 3 and the proceedings were stayed. During the period of the stay, the Claimant did not serve the claimant form on the Defendant. The Defendant argued that the failure to serve the claim form within 4 months meant that the claim lapsed and there were no proceedings. At first instance the Claimant won, however the defendant appealed and HHJ Gore QC reversed that decision, finding that the stay did not operate to stay the time within which the claimant must serve the proceedings. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was given by LJ Hamblen. The Court of Appeal considered that a stay 'halts' or 'freezes' proceedings. No steps are required or even permitted during a stay. When a stay is lifted, the position is exactly as it was between the parties the moment the stay was imposed. The Court of Appeal also noted that para 16 of PD 8B requires the claimant to 'send' the defendant the claim form, rather than 'serve' it. There was no justification in the argument that the claim form stood outside the rules, there was no distinction in the CPRs between the service of a claim form and any other procedural step. Also the interpretation of the CPRs could be 'sense-tested' by noting that if there were a requirement to serve the claim form within 4 months despite a stay, then that would require the appellant to seek a stay, then apply to lift the say in order to serve the claim form, then presumably apply to re-impose the stay. Such a procedure would be unnecessarily cumbersome and contrary to the intention that the rules in this area should be straightforward. This is an interesting judgment on the issue of limitation and the Portal. It does not appear that the Court of Appeal were directed to the decision in Patel v Fortis which dealt specifically with service in the Portal. Indeed it is also clear that the Court of Appeal were labouring under the mis-apprehension that there was a requirement to serve a Portal claim form within 4 months, which does not appear anywhere in the Portal Protocol or PD 8B. However, it does give welcome clarity on the position once a claim is issued and the status of a stay. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Asmat Bi v Tesco Underwriting Ltd HHJ Sephton KC, Manchester CC, Aug 2024, claim no K04MA298 Whilst only a first tier hearing, it is useful as a point of reference given the paucity of case law on the October 23 extention 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. Judgment Go back to Main Index Go back to Topic Index Index Index

Uppal v Daudia DDJ Matthews, Leicester CC, 14th May 2012 - The defendant recovered their own costs of defending the Part 7 proceedings on the indemnity basis because of C's unreasonable exit from Portal Key Point Defendant recovered indemnity costs because of C's unreasonable exit from Portal Uppal v Daudia DDJ Matthews, Leicester CC, 14th May 2012 The Claimant removed the claim from the Portal after the Defendant failed to reply to its second offer. The court confirmed that the Defendant only needs to make one offer in the Portal. Therefore the exit from the Portal was unreasonable. As the Claimant had acted unreasonably, it followed that the Defendant was entitled to their costs of the Part 7 proceedings on an indemnity basis. Click here for the Lawtel case summary 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

Other Cases concerning fixed costs, from the Court of Appeal down to Deputy District Judges. See what is going on at the coal face! Other Useful Fixed Costs Cases Ahmed v Pryce DJ Bellamy, Sheffield CC, 11.12.18 Ashraf v Savage DDJ Nix, Leeds CC, 16.01.19 Aslam v Gavin DJ Underwood, Bradford CC, 15.12.17 Baker v Flynn DDJ LeBas, Guildford CC, 19.11.19 (upheld on appeal) Bobby Prior v Silverline International Ltd HHJ Wood QC, Liverpool CC, 08.07.15 Cable v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 1015 Ionas v Clennell HHJ Gargan, Middlesbrough CC, 23.10.17 Moon v Catley HHJ Gargan, Middlesbrough CC, 11.01.17 R (on the application of Bhatti) v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council [2013] All ER (D) 355 (Oct) Rennie v Logistic Management Services Ltd and Smith v Wyatt [2011] EWCA Civ 941 Talbot v South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust DJ Stewart, Southampton CC, 21.09.19 Wilkinson-Mulvanny v UK Insurance Ltd Regional Costs Judge Phillips, Cardiff CC, on 19.01.23

Ansell & Evans v AT&T HHJ Clarke, Oxford County Court, 14th December 2017 Key Point A court can order Portal costs under CPR 45.24 even where a Part 36 offer has been accepted (Inconsistent with Cookson v Manchester City Council) Ansell & Evans v AT&T DDJ Lynch, Slough County Court, 12th June 2017 (first instance) HHJ Clarke, Oxford County Court, 14th December 2017 (on appeal) Here the Claimants left the RTA Portal unreasonably, then settled the matter by way of Part 36 offer. The Claimants, represented by Kevin Latham, argued that on acceptance of a Part 36 offer, the Defendant could not seek costs to be limited under CPR 45.24 because the costs were governed by CPR 36.20, which specifically directed the tables in CPR 45 SIIIA, rather than more generally to SIIIA. However, Sarah successfully argued that if the Claimant had not left the Portal unreasonably, parties would not have been able to make a Part 36 offer, and you could not retrospectively 'correct' an earlier unreasonable exit. Furthermore CPR 36.20 was headed 'Cost consequences of acceptance of a Part 36 offer where SIIIA of Part 45 applies. Thus if costs were to be assessed under CPR 36.20, the costs were those under SIIIA, which included CPR 45.24. The lower court accepted Sarah's submissions and confirmed that CPR 45.24 remains open for a court to use even on acceptance of a Part 36 offer. The Claimant appealed, but unsuccessfully. The appellate court upheld the decision at first instance, noting that CPR 45.29(1) specifically stated it was subject to ss(3) which preserved the court's power in CPR 45.24. NB There are now two inconsistent decisions at the same level, so some higher authority would be welcome to clarify which is the correct approach. Readers are reminded of the principle in Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2013] UKSC 72 at [59] where the court found that as a matter of general principle, thus Where there are conflicting decisions from judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction, then, in the absence of cogent reasons to the contrary, the second of those decisions should be followed. As Ansell is the later decision, this should therefore, be preferred over Cookson v Manchester City Council . Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Akinrodoye v Esure DJ Goodchild, Romford CC, 16th February 2015 - Portal offers remain open for acceptance until withdrawn, even after Part 7 proceedings have been issued. Key Point Portal offers remain open for acceptance until withdrawn, even after Part 7 proceedings have been issued Akinrodoye v Esure DJ Goodchild, Romford CC, 16th Feb 2015 This claim had started in the MOJ RTA Portal and Part 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 because Part 7 proceedings had been issued (trying to distinguish this from Purcell v McGarry .) However, the court found that a Portal offer remains open for acceptance unless withdrawn and that it could not be implicitly withdrawn nor withdrawn automatically because certain events such as proceedings had been issued. This is an important case as it extends the decision in Purcell to make it clear that Portal offers remain open for acceptance unless and until withdrawn. Litigants need to be careful to ensure that they have not left any unsuitable Portal offers open if circumstances have changed. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index