Bird v Acorn [2016] EWCA Civ 1096 - the Court of Appeal held that listing a case for disposal, not just trial, triggered the highest stage of fixed SIIIA CPR 45 fixed costs for cases which leave the Portal. There was no requirement for a case to go through all the stages in order. Key Point A disposal hearing is a trial for the purposes of SIIIA Fixed costs Bird v Acorn Group Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1096 The Court of Appeal held that listing a claim for not just a trial still triggered the highest stage of SIIIA CPR 45 fixed costs for cases which leave the Portal. A disposal was a trial for the purposes of fixed SIIIA costs. There was no requirement for a case to go through all the stages in order. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Ingrid Smith v Greater Manchester Buses South Ltd HHJ Main QC, Manchester CC, 17.12.15 Key Point Protocol offers are open for acceptance until withdrawn, even after Part 7 proceedings have been issued but only if they have proceeded into Stage 3 Ingrid Smith v Greater Manchester Buses South Ltd HHJ Main QC, Manchester CC, 17th Dec 2015 Protocol offers are open for acceptance until withdrawn, even after Part 7 proceedings have been issued but only if they have proceeded into Stage 3. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Mazur Run & Gun is the answer to the Mazur problem. Get away from it all! Run - and very fast! Armed only with deadly mince pies, you'll have to move fast to dodge the bullets sent at the unqualified, however supervised you may be. If you're not careful, you could end up floating away, and let's face it, no-one wants that! Mazur, like you've never seen it before! Christmas Game Mazur has had us all on the run, but can you outrun them? Armed only with deadly mince pies, your job is to chase the baddies away before they get to you, or even blow you away! Ahem. You all thought you could get a game about Mazur, but as it turns out, the Association of Gaming Designers* and the Board of Satire and Christmas Spirit*, in terms reminiscent of the CA in Denton speaking of Mitchell, have said you all mis-understood them. They have never approved you doing this. You cannot play a Mazur game, even when supervised. You can, however, play a game called 'Track Attack'. Which, as LJ Waller once famously said, may be a distinction without a difference... For years you've been conducting litigation under supervision. But no more, it seems everyone is out to get you. You can no longer do this. However, all is not lost! You might be able to outrun and outgun the baddies! Run away as fast as you can, and use your deadly mince pie gun to shoot others out of the way. But watch out, the occasional train will randomly fly off the tracks - so be quick! Track Attack is a perfectly suitable fun Christmas game for all litigators, qualified or not. Just run around and shoot stuff. Nothing to do with Mazur. Play here How to Play Controls A - Left D - Right W - Up S - Down Or use the arrow buttons: < - Left > - Right /\ - Up v - Down Space bar - shoot your deadly mince pie! Search the site here: Mazur Run & Gun does not work on mobile phones. It is designed to give my clients a few minutes reprieve when working hard at their desks. So next time you're at your PC or Laptop, come back and play the Mazur game. Meanwhile, just so you don't miss out entirely, have a go at this Christmas Match game. Nothing to do with Mazur! :) When you're done, why not browse through the fixed costs cases on here - see the Index or use the search function to see if there's a case or two you can use. I am particularly keen to get any judgments on the new Oct 23+ expanded fixed costs, so if you get any - reported or not - please do send them to me! Thank you. * entirely fictional and any similarity to any real organisations is entirely coincidental

Sharp v Leeds City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 33 on wehther SIIIA CPR 45 fixed costs applied on Pre-Action Disclosure ("PAD") applications. The Court of Appeal held SIIIA applied. To recognise implied exceptions to the application of fixed costs would undermine the whole fixed costs scheme. The 'blanket' application of SIIIA fixed costs was confirmed. The only exceptions are in CPR 45.29A(2) for disease claims, CPR 4529A(3) for costs assessed under CPR 45.24 and CPR 45.29B for multi track claims Key Point 'Blanket' application of SIIIA Costs Sharp v Leeds City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 33 Here the issue was whether SIIIA CPR 45 fixed costs applied on Pre-Action Disclosure ("PAD") applications. At first instance, it was held they did not apply, however on first-tier appeal the court said SIIIA did apply. The Court of Appeal held that SIIIA costs did apply. PAD applications were not in a class of their own. To recognise implied exceptions to the application of fixed costs would undermine the whole fixed costs scheme. This case confirms the 'blanket' application of SIIIA fixed costs. The only exceptions are as stated in CPR 45.29A(2), for disease claims, CPR 4529A(3) for costs assessed under CPR 45.24 and CPR 45.29B for claims allocated to the multi-track. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Purcell v McGarry - the court held that offer and acceptance have no place in the MOJ Portal - it is a stand-alone code. Key Point Contract Law, including offer and acceptance, has no place in MOJ Portal Protocol cases Purcell v McGarry HHJ Gore QC, Liverpool CC, Friday 7th December 2012 The issue here on first tier appeal was whether a Defendant could accept an offer after the end of Stage 2. The judge held that a Portal offer remains open for acceptance after the end of Stage 2. Importantly he noted that contract rules such as offer and acceptance have no place in the Portal arena. This case is important as it establishes that a Portal offer does not automatically cease to be open for acceptance. It has been followed by other cases which have held how offers made in the Portal remain open for acceptance even after Part 7 proceedings have been issued. It also makes it clear that the Portal is 'its own man' and thus contract law does not apply. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Portal Admissions binding outside? Disapplication of Common Law

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

Case law on the status of Portal offers once a claim has left the portal, the difference between a Protocol offer and a Portal offer, withdrawing offers 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) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index Search the site here:

Coleman v Townsend Master Haworth, SCCO, 13th July 2020. Disbursements not recoverable in SIIIA cases where fixed costs allow for that work, even when ordered. The court noted it preferred the submissions of Sarah Robson over Ben Williams KC. Key Point Recoverability of disbursements in SIIIA cases Coleman v Townsend Master Haworth, SCCO, 13th July 2020 This was an appeal from an Oral Review of a Provisional Assessment. The appeal was limited to two items; Counsel's abated brief fee for trial and Counsel's skeleton argument. The costs were governed by SIIIA of CPR 45. The defendant made a Part 36 offer just over 21 days before trial. There was an order for skeleton arguments to be exchanged two clear days before trial, so the relevant period of the offer included the due date for the skeleton arguments. The claimant accepted the defendant's offer the day before trial, and sought their costs of the ordered skeleton argument and abated brief fee. At first instance the court had disallowed counsel's fee for drafting the Particulars of Claim, but allowed the fee for the skeleton argument and abated brief fee. The defendant appealed. The claimant was represented by Ben Williams QC and the defendant by Sarah Robson . Mr Williams argued that the brief had to be delivered before the day of the trial, it would have been unreasonable not to have done so. He sought the abated brief fee not under Table 6B section D as that is clearly only payable on the day of trial which had not been reached but rather under CPR 45.29I(2)(h). He further argued that the defendant could not complain where they had made an offer open for acceptance for 21 days where those 21 days included the due date for skeleton arguments - there was nothing wrong with waiting to see what arguments were going to be presented before deciding to accept the defendant's offer. He also argued that the 'swings and roundabouts' argument no longer applied in the post-LASPO world. The hearing was adjourned part heard pending the decision in Cham v Aldred . Once that decision was published, the claimant then argued that the trial advocates' fee was not earned under Table 6B, as that fee is only earned on the date of trial itself, but rather simply as a disbursement and was recoverable under ss(h). There was therefore no duplication of the trial advocacy fee in Table 6B. The defendant argued that fixed costs were designed to give certainty and the trial advocacy fee was clearly intended to only be recoverable inter-parties once the day of trial had been reached. Likewise the skeleton argument was part of the trial preparation and should similarly be disallowed. The judge preferred the submissions of the Appellant/Defendant, finding that the costs of preparing for trial included preparing the skeleton argument and that stage had simply not been reached. It was therefore not payable, and the appeal was allowed. 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:

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:

Qader v Esure Services Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1109 - Fixed costs per SIIIA of CPR 45 do not apply to cases allocated to the multi-track. It had to be actual allocation, not merely expected or anticipated, to give certainty and avoid satellite litigation. Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2002] 1 WLR 586 applied re correcting obvious drafting errors. Key Point Fixed SIIIA costs do not apply to cases allocated to the multi-track Qadar v Esure Services Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1109 This claim had started in the Portal then left, and was allocated to the multi-track and so, prima facie, fell into fixed costs under SIIIA of CPR 45. The Claimant argued that these costs should not apply. They demonstrated a clear intention that fixed costs were intended to apply to claims allocated to the fast track, pointing out how this had been the stated intention from Jackson LJ's reports and consultations and replies to consultations. The Claimant was thus able to establish that the intention of Parliament had not been included in the CPRs by mere inadvertence. The Court of Appeal found authority in Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586 for correcting obvious drafting errors including omissions in rules. This was a clear case where the court should exercise that jurisdiction. The court, therefore, added in the words 'unless allocated to the multi-track' to the rules to achieve that end. It is interesting to see that the Claimant demonstrated that the fixed costs were intended to apply only to fast-track cases. However, the Court of Appeal excluded cases unless allocated to the multi-track, rather than specify it was for cases allocated to the fast-track. They also made it clear there has to be that allocation. This gives certainty, removing arguments around whether a case would have been allocated to the multi-track, but arguably does not follow from the precise position which the Claimant established. 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 SIIIA CPR 45 costs, cases which have started in the MOJ Portal but then left. Old SIIIA CPR 45x Fixed costs on leaving the Portal Cases which leave the portals are still subject to the old fixed costs regime under SIIIA of CPR 45x. An x is used after CPR 45 following the convention in the White Book to denote these are the old rules albeit they are still in force for some claims. Attersley v UK Insurance Ltd [2025] EWHC 884 (KB) (When a Part 36 offer is made before a claim is allocated to the multi-track, but accepted after allocation, the effect of the allocation is retrospective and thus open costs apply) Melloy & Anor v UK Insurance Ltd [2002] EW Misc 4 (CC) (Where there is more than one claimant in a SIIIA claim, each party is entitled to a set of SIIIA fixed costs) West v Burton [2021] EWCA Civ 1005 (SIIIA costs do not apply where the claimant dies whilst the claim is in the Portal) Coleman v Townsend Master Haworth, SCCO, 13.07.20 (What disbursements can be allowed post-Cham in SIIIA cases) Hislop v Perde; Kaur v Committee (for the time being) of Ramgarhia Board Leicester [2018] EWCA Civ 1726 (No indemnity costs on late acceptance of a Part 36 where SIIIA applies) Broadhurst v Tan; Taylor v Smith [2016] EWCA Civ 94 (SIIIA Indemnity costs are hourly rate not fixed) Qader v Esure Services Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1109 (Exception to SIIIA costs where allocated to multi-track) Sharp v Leeds City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 33 (SIIIA fixed costs for interim applications apply even for Pre-Action Disclosure applications) Bird v Acorn [2016] EWCA Civ 1096 (Re stage of fixed costs) Singh v Ajaz HHJ Denyer QC, Bristol CC, 27th Sept 2016 (A claim which partly settles in the Portal and then leaves is subject to SIIIA fixed costs in all cases, even small claims) Chapman v Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust DJ Swindley, Bolton County Court, 15th Jun 2016 (A court has the power to vary quantum of fixed SIIIA costs for conduct) Petit v MIB v 5 Ors DJ Pollard, Brighton CC, 15.02.17 (Where claim not properly started in the Portal, SIIIA costs did not follow) Cham (by their Litigation Friend, Laura Martin) v Aldred [2019] EWCA Civ 1780 (Deals with disbursements under SIIIA) Santiago v MIB [2023] EWCA Civ 838 (Interpreter's fees are recoverable under SIIIA) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index Search the site here: