Search Results

DJ Jackson, Canterbury County Court, 29th November 2017. An unusual case where CPR 45.29J exceptional circumstances were found. The claim settled for £350K, there were multiple experts and much in issue. C also argued unsuccessfully that having agreed standard basis costs that excluded fixed costs, before Adelekun v Ho was decided. Key Point SIIIA Exceptional Circumstances Costs under CPR 45.29J Jackson v Barfoot Farms DJ Jackson, Canterbury County Court, 29th Nov 2017 Here the Claimant argued that having agreed terms that the Defendant would pay the Claimant's costs on the standard basis, that fixed costs were excluded. However, the judge found this did not, interestingly the same decision was reached in the SCCO in Davies v Greenway , although the court was not referred to that. Secondly, the claimant was able to successfully argue that the case was so exceptional that non-fixed costs would apply, per CPR 45.29J. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

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

Purcell v McGarry - HHJ Gore QC, Liverpool CC, Friday 7th December 2012. The court held that the portal offers were still open for acceptance after Stage 2 had ended, despite the portal protocol implying otherwise. Contract Law, including offer and acceptance, has no place in MOJ Portal Protocol cases. Key Points Contract Law, including offer and acceptance, has no place in MOJ Portal Protocol cases Purcell v McGarry HHJ Gore QC, Liverpool CC, Friday 7th Dec 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 Topic Index

Doyle v Manchester Audi DJ Matharu, Manchester CC, 25th June 2013 - Omission to act causing claim to leave Portal was an election to leave. Key Point Omission to act causing claim to leave Portal was an election to leave Doyle v Manchester Audi DJ Matharu, Manchester CC, 25th June 2013 The Claimant gave his 'known as' name and his then girlfriend's address at the scene of an accident. He then consulted with solicitors and they submitted a CNF with his legal name on and, having split up with his girlfriend, his parents address where he then lived. On receipt of a CNF with a different name and address than that provided at the scene, the Defendant was naturally unwilling to simply admit liability. The Defendant sought confirmation from the Claimant of his identity, and in particular for photographic evidence of his identity. The Claimant delayed in providing this for several months, during which time the claim automatically timed out of the Portal. The claim then went through Part 7 proceedings, and when it came to costs, the Defendant averred that the Claimant should be restricted to Portal costs, per CPR 45.36 (now CPR 45.35) because they had caused the claim to leave the Portal by their omission to supply the information reasonably sought, albeit not required by the Protocol. The Claimant argued that the Portal rules were strict, and that there was no requirement to have provided the information sought. They maintained that as the Defendant had not admitted liability within Stage 1, irrespective of the identity position, then they were perfectly entitled to leave the Portal. The Defendant relied on Ilahi v Usman to show that doing something which had the automatic effect of causing a claim to leave the Portal was just the same as not doing something (in this case failing to confirm the Claimant's identity in time) which had the automatic consequence of making the claim leave the Portal. The court found that the Claimant had failed to provide the information reasonably sought which had caused the claim to leave the Portal. The Claimant was restricted to no more than Portal costs. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Mozzano v Riwa DDJ Dawson, Birkenhead CC, 24th April 2012. How to deal with multiple CNFs. KeyPoint Practical guidance on what to do when faced with multiple CNFs for the same claim Mozzano v Riwa DDJ Dawson, Birkenhead CC, 24th April 2012 The Defendant received a CNF, accepted the claim and admitted liability. The Defendant paid the Stage 1 costs. The Defendant then received a second CNF from a different firm for the same accident they already had a live Portal claim for. The Defendant solicitors sought confirmation from the second firm that they were properly acting for the Claimant, which was received 17 days later. The Defendant admitted liability within 15 days of receiving that confirmation but the claim had timed out of the Portal by then. Part 7 proceedings were issued and damages were later settled but not costs. The matter went to a hearing to determine what costs the parties were entitled to. The court noted that there was nothing in the rules which provided for what to do in this sort of case. However, the judge found at [10] that because of the doubt over the identity of who exactly was the authorised representative, it was incumbent on the Claimant to confirm who was acting for him. The judge also held at [11] that time would only start to run from the delivery of the confirmation of authority to act and clarification of the correct identity of the Claimant's solicitors on the Defendant. The judge also held at [11] that it was a matter for the second Claimant solicitors to sort out Stage 1 costs with the first firm of solicitors, that was not for the Defendant to do. The judge held that the Claimant was only entitled to Portal costs, and the second firm was only entitled to Stage 2 costs, Stage 1 costs having already been paid to the first firm. Please note there are two judgments, the first deals with a late skeleton argument, the second with the substantive matter. 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 Where there are two claimants in a SIIIA fixed costs claim, each claimant is entitled to a separate award of fixed costs Melloy & Anor v UK Insurance Ltd [2022] EW Misc 4 (CC) The court had to consider what costs to award two claimants where they had brought separate claims in the portal, but a joint claim in Part 7 proceedings. At [10], HHJ Glen held that 'claim' and 'claimant' refer to the claim started by, and the claimant who submitted the CNF, rather than to the claim or claimant in the proceedings. He derived support for this position from West v Burton [2021] EWCA Civ 1005, where the court found that the executor of a claimant who had died after Portal proceedings had commenced was not 'the claimant' for the purposes of fixed costs on leaving the Portal. Therefore, he concluded that where there were two or more claimants in proceedings for damages that fall within SIIIA of CPR 45, assuming each had submitted a CNF, were separately entitled to all the costs set out in Table 6B. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Ampratwum & Zbigniew Samajeden v Esure Birkenhead CC, 5th June 2013 - the court held that a Claimant must have paid for vehicle damages personally before an interim payment can be claimed for them in the MOJ Portal. Key Point A Claimant must have paid for vehicle damages personally before an interim payment can be claimed for them Ampratwum & Zbigniew Samajeden v Esure Birkenhead CC, 5th June 2013 Sarah successfully argued here that a Claimant was not justified in leaving the Portal when a Defendant failed to make a payment for an interim payment within the requisite time. The entitlement to an interim payment for damages, sometimes called additional damages, only arises where a Claimant personally has paid out for that head of loss. If an interim payment for normal damages had not been made in time then a Claimant could leave the Portal. Please note there is no available copy of this judgment. This case makes the point that portal rules must be carefully studied! Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Legal Articles by Sarah Robson Barrister Fixed Costs Specialist Including the new Precdent U for download, and the SCCO Guide 2023 as well as further details on Bobby Prior v Silverline International Ltd, HHJ Wood QC. 8th July 2015. Sarah Robson Barrister Fixed Costs Specialist Call now on 0800 634 9650 Legal Articles* * This website is intended to provide general guidance only. It does not give legal or professional and is not to be used in providing the same. Whilst all efforts have been made to ensure that the information is accurate, any liability including that arising in is excluded to the fullest extent lawfully permitted for any loss or damage howsoever arising from the use of this information. precedent-u (2) Precedent U Precedent U has been updated for assessement of fixed costs under the new regime. Download version 2 it here. Premature Issue Article on the case of Bobby Prior v Silverline International Ltd, HHJ Wood QC, Liverpool CC, 8th July 2015 now available. Claimant issue proceedings after 21 days in accordance with the letter of the personal injury pre-action protocol. However, there was no compliance with the spirit of the protocol. The Claimant was reduced to pre-issue costs by the Designated Circuit Judge of Liverpool. Click here for article including copy of the judgment. Legal Humour A light-heartedly look at the law and legal profession. (Submissions for inclusion here gratefully received.) A poor solicitor can cause a trial to be delayed for months. A good solicitor can cause a trial to be delayed for years. Caveat : No lawyers were harmed during the construction of this site. When a person assists a criminal they are aiding and abetting. When a person assists a criminal we call them a defence lawyer. The pupil barrister carefully warned his client not to lie when giving evidence. He asked if his client appreciated what could happen if he did not tell the truth in court. "We'll probably win" his client replied. Why did the lawyer cross the road? To sue the chicken. What's the difference between a good lawyer and a great lawyer? A good lawyer knows the law, a great lawyer knows the judge. Never mind the dog - Beware of the dog's lawyer. When does a claim start? Sarah has again successfully argued a claim does not start for the purposes of Part 7 until the court issues the claim. A claim which settles before the court has issued it only attracts predictive costs, per CPR 7.2, PD 7A 5.1 and CPR 44.12A (c), even if the papers have been sent to the court. SCCO Guide 2023 The latest SCCO guide is now out. Click here for a copy. What is the nature of a Provisional Assessment Oral Review? Is an Oral Review just a review, a rehearing, or is it more like an appeal where parties are limited to what they raised in the Provisional Assessment hearing? Cook on Costs has one line stating the court will hear issues 'afresh'. Dr Mark Friston confirms the same view in Friston on Costs 3rd Edition. HHJ Wood QC, the DCJ at Liverpool has considered this on appeal twice and has concluded that new evidence can be admitted on oral review. Download copies of the judgments here in the cases of: Ion v Ahmed , and Mehmi v Pincher. However, more recently he has reversed himself, finding that you cannot adduce new evidence at Oral Review. Keeps us on our toes, I suppose! Provisional Assessment Oral Review In order to recover the costs of an oral review of a Provisional assessment, CPR 47.15(10) requires the applicant to obtain an adjustment in its own favour by 20% or more of the sum provisionally assessed. Is that just the items reviewed or 20% of the whole bill? This issue was considered by Master O'Hare in Keah M B O'Reilly v H R Richmond Ltd, SCCO, 16.09.14. The court confirmed it was 20% of the whole bill, not just the part(s) being reviewed. The court was also invited to use its discretion under CPR 47.15(1)(b) because of the adjustment of more than 20% achieved on the items reviewed, but declined to do so. Click here for an approved note of the judgment. Miscellaneous Expenses A lot of fuss and bother over nothing? Ghattaorya v Bailey LTLPI 05/10/2009 My case of Ghattaorya v Bailey on miscellaneous expenses is years old, yet it still attracts vast numbers of hits on my site. One cannot its importance when Part 36 offers are close, and thousands of pounds in costs can turn on whether this is allowed or disallowed. Do not ignore miscellaneous expenses! Claimant solicitors plead ‘miscellaneous’ expenses as an almost mandatory ‘add-on.’ This is to cover the cost of subsidiary expenses which have been incurred because of the litigation. Whilst it is that you cannot recover stress and anguish incurred because of litigation, the miscellaneous claim seems to have slipped through the net as a legitimate expense. This head of deserves closer inspection: The miscellaneous claim is for telephone calls, postage and stationary - travel is usually claimed for separately. Miscellaneous claims in your average fast track case typically range from about £10 to £50.There may have been the cost of posting an initial form reporting the incident to the insurer or solicitor, perhaps with a covering letter. However, many insurance companies take a claim over the phone now, rather than requiring the completion of a form, or provide a pre-paid envelope. The postage, therefore, is probably no more than one or two stamps. The cost of stationery – well everything is done by email now. Many insurance companies and solicitors firms provide free-phone numbers or call numbers, e.g. 0845. Most mobile phone packages now include unlimited phone calls. Put the claimant to proof and a judge will laugh at you, as there are hardly ever any receipts for these sorts of expenses. Cross-examine, and you risk the wrath of the judge and a stop being placed on cross-examination thus deemed ‘unnecessary’. Most sensible Counsel (with sensible instructions) will get their heads together before trial and some compromise figure. In this case, the judge dismissed the entire head of claim for miscellaneous expenses, noting that claiming for miscellaneous expenses was ‘a bad habit claimant solicitors had got into’. That principle was approved by HHJ Harrington in Harwood v Kapek (2010) LTLPI 21/7/2010 citing the failure to correctly plead the losses under this head as the reason for not allowing a miscellaneous claim, Ghattaorya v Bailey approved. There are a few (easier to spell) other cases on miscellaneous expenses, but Ghattaorya v Bailey is the most well known and often referred to. Click here for a copy of the judgment.

< Back Renewable Energy Program 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

Hussain v Wardle - DJ Rank, Stoke on Trent CC, 25th February 2017. Here the CNF was rejected for lack of information. There was no test of reasonableness in CPR 45.24(2)(a) - unlike with leaving the Portal under CPR 45.24(2)(b)(i-iii). Key Point CNF rejected for lack of information - no test of reasonableness in CPR 45.24(2)(a) - unlike with leaving the Portal under CPR 45.24(2)(b)(i-iii) Hussain v Wardle Stoke on Trent CC, DJ Rank, 25th February 2017 The Claimant brought a claim in the MOJ Portal but failed to provide the Defendant's name in the CNF. The Defendant's name had not been provided at the scene. The Defendant Insurer rejected the CNF for incomplete information on it. The Defendant's name is a mandatory field. The Claimant then issued Part 7 proceedings and the claim settled by way of Part 36 offer. Costs went to Detailed Assessment. On Provisional Assessment the court found that the Claimant was in breach of the Portal Protocol, and restricted the Claimant to Portal costs. However, the Claimant applied for Oral Review, arguing it was not their fault they had failed to provide this mandatory information, and they had made good efforts to settle the claim after the claim left the Portal and before proceedings were issued, which should count in their favour. The court found there was a breach of the Portal Protocol, and went on to consider whether to exercise their discretion under CPR 45.24(2)(b). The court agreed with the Defendant that they could not use hindsight and speculation, per Tennant v Cottrell and Dawrant v Part & Parcel Network . Thus what happened after the Portal breach was irrelevant. The court agreed with the non-binding finding in Raja v Day & MIB , that the default position on the finding of a breach was that Portal costs should apply. The court found there were no exceptional circumstances which would justify a change from the default position. There were well-established ways of finding out the Defendant's details. The court also considered the fact that the claim had settled by way of a Part 36 offer, but rejected the Claimant's argument that this precluded an award under CPR 45.24(2). DJ Rank relied on the judgment of Lo rd Justice Moore-Bick in Solomon v Cromwell in this regard and quoted him at [17] thus: If the appellants' argument were correct, the acceptance of a Part 36 offer would always result in an order for costs on the standard basis in low-value road traffic accident cases. That would undermine the fixed costs regime and provide a powerful incentive for defendants not to make Part 36 offers in such cases... In the absence of any exceptional circumstances which would justify departing from the established default position, the court found that they would restrict the Claimant to Portal costs. There are not many cases of claims which have come out of the Portal because of lack of information on the CNF, so this is a particularly useful case. Note that there is no test of reasonableness in CPR 45.24(2)(a) as there is in CPR 45.24(2)(b). Thus even though the Claimant had ostensibly a good reason for not completing one of the mandatory fields, it could not and did not avail him. The rule in CPR 45.24(2)(a) only requires the Defendant to have rejected the claim because of INSUFFICIENT information. There is no requirement for the missing information to be mandatory. There is a curious further Portal provision at para 6.8 of the RTA Protocol, which provides that where a Defendant considers inadequate MANDATORY information has been provided, that shall be a valid reason for the Defendant to decide that the claim should no longer continue under the Protocol. There is no assessment of the reasonableness or not of the Defendant anywhere in CPR 45.24, there is no weighing of each party's behaviour, so it is unclear why this rule exists. In practice, it seems to operate to strengthen a Defendant's position when seeking an order under CPR 45.24(2)(a) where the insufficient information arises from a missing or incomplete mandatory field. However it does appear to some litigants into thinking that there is a benefit in trying to establish that a Defendant's decision to reject a CNF was invalid. Time will tell. 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

This is a Title 02 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. Judgment Go back to Main Index Go back to Topic Index Index Index

HHJ Stewart QC, Manchester CC, 21st July 2011 - believed to be the first ever Portal appeal. Here the court had no witness statement and a range of prognosis was given - the court had to consider what level of award to give - HHJ Stewart held one should approach this the same as a future loss claim. Key Point Where range of prognosis given, should use mid-point, as for future loss claims Dominic v Martin HHJ Stewart QC, Manchester CC, 21st Jul 2011 Under the 2010 Portal protocol there was no specific provision for witness statements, and Lamb v Gregory had not yet been decided. The judge faced with a paper assessment at Stage 3 and no witness statement, decided to award damages on the basis of the lowest end of the range of prognosis given. The Claimant appealed. On appeal (understood to be the very first Portal appeal) the court held that where a medical report gave a range of prognosis, in the absence of a witness statement, the court should award in the middle of the period, as with future loss cases. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index