piBlawg

the personal injury and clinical negligence blog

A collaboration between Rebmark Legal Solutions and 1 Chancery Lane

Inadequate bundles: a costly mistake...

15 August 2016 Ian-Miller case report, costs, cpr (0)
The July edition of Civil Procedure News reports a case in which a claimant's bundles were inadequate, two applications were adjourned and the claimant was ordered to pay the costs of producing properly prepared bundles and the costs thrown away as a result of the adjournment. The claimant had brought three applications for summary judgment on three separate claims. Two of the applications were supported by a witness statement which had 750 pages of exhibits. The judge criticised the lack of pagination and the fact that many of the exhibits were not placed in the bundle where they were stated to be in the witness statements. The inadequate pagination meant that the time-estimate for pre-reading and the hearing was inadequate. The judge found there had been a breach of the Overriding Objective (managing the courts resources proportionately). PM Project Services Limited v Dairy Crest Ltd [2016] EWHC 1235 is a sobering reminder of the potential consequences of poorly-prepared bundles. This decision comes hot on the heals of a decision earlier this year by the Court of Appeal. The editor of the Civil Procedure News draws attention to the decision in Pawar v JSD Haulage Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 551 in which the Court of Appeal granted the respondent its costs of having to prepare appeal bundles as those submitted by the appellant were described as "chaotic".

Assessing the cost of ATE Premiums

08 July 2016 Thomas-Crockett case report, costs, courts, General, LP Costs, personal injury (0)
If anyone needs a reminded why the costs landscape for personal injury litigators has changed so dramatically they may not need look much further than the judgment of the Designated Civil Judge of the County Court at London, HHJ Walden-Smith, sitting with DJ Letham as assessor in the costs case of Banks v London Borough of Hillingdon, which has been commented upon in the legal press. The case concerned the correct assessment of an After-The-Event insurance policy, an issue which ranked high on the list of insurers' (and it seems the Government's) bugbears with the unreformed CFA system.   The underlying case was a straightforward, low-value, public liability tripper case. The successful claimant was awarded just under £7,000 in damages and costs were assessed/agreed save for a somewhat eye-watering £24,694 ATE premium. Master Gordon-Saker the costs judge cut this down to £9,375 on the basis that it was patently unreasonable for a premium to so extensively exceed the likely assured sum. This latter figure the Master considered would have been a maximum of £15,000, that is, the maximum amount such an insurer would have to pay out in costs should the claimant lose the case. He awarded half this sum, plus another 25 percent. Before the learned senior circuit judge it was argued that the costs master misdirected himself and should have considered the “basket of risk” for insurers, rather than applying some sort of common-sense approach on a case-by-case basis. The court overturned Master Gordon-Saker’s decision on the ground that he indeed erred and failed to consider the august guidance of the Court of Appeal in Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil CBC [2006] EWCA Civ 1134. The court held that it was for the paying party to adduce evidence that the premium was excessive and as this had not been available in the instant case, the costs master had no basis to conclude that the sum claimed was unreasonable (per, Kris Motor Spares Ltd v Fox Williams LLP [2010] EWHC 1008). This decision must be seen as victory for claimant litigators, given that it should serve as a persuasive reminder to trial judges to follow Rogers in the ever-diminishing rump of cases where such high ATE premiums are seen. The lesson for defendants is obvious: in cases where they are put on notice that, if successful, a claimant party will seek payment of what appears to be a very high ATE premium, it would be prudent to obtain evidence that lower premiums were available to support the conclusion that what is allowed should be assessed down. In the event that such information is not available until at or after trial, such a defendant would have little option other than to request that the matter be subject to detailed assessment, potentially at the expense of the claimant party.

QOCS : applies to appeals?

27 May 2016 Thomas-Crockett costs, General, LP Procedure, personal injury, procedure (0)
Qualified One-way Costs Shifting: does it apply to appeals?   Yes, according to Edis J in Parker v Butler [2016] EWHC 1251 (QB), who held:   3.         If (as is likely to be the case here) the claimant's access to justice is dependent on the benefit of QOCS, that access will be significantly reduced if he is exposed to a risk as to the costs of any unsuccessful appeal which he may bring or any successful appeal a defendant may bring against him. ...   4.         The power to make enforceable orders for costs is designed to compensate successful parties for their expense in bringing or resisting claims, but it also has an effect of deterring people from bringing or resisting claims unsuccessfully. It is an incentive to resolve disputes and serves a public as well as a private interest. ...   9.         CPR 44.13 provides "(1) This Section applies to proceedings which include a claim for damages – (a) for personal injuries"   10.       The issue is, therefore, whether the appeal is part of the proceedings which include a claim for damages for personal injuries or whether it is separate from them and thus not subject to the regime. If it is separate from the proceedings which culminated in the trial, is it nonetheless a set of proceedings which includes a claim for damages?   17.       An appeal by a claimant against the dismissal of his claim for personal injuries is a means of pursuing that claim against the defendant or defendants who succeeded in defeating that claim at trial. There is no difference between the parties or the relief sought as there is between the original claim and the Part 20 claim. Most importantly, to my mind there is no difference between the nature of the claimant at trial and the appellant on appeal. He is the same person, and the QOCS regime exists for his benefit as the best way to protect his access to justice to pursue a personal injury claim. To construe the word "proceedings" as excluding an appeal which was necessary if he were to succeed in establishing the claim which had earlier attracted costs protection would do nothing to serve the purpose of the QOCS regime. ...

Cost Budgets – Rule Changes

06 April 2016 Roderick-Abbott costs, cpr, General, legislation (0)
Changes to the CPR coming into force today alter the rules relating to cost budgets. In cases with a stated value of over £50,000 all parties except litigants in person will now exchange budgets 21 days before the first case management conference. Parties must then file an agreed  “budget discussion report” at least 7 days before the first CMC setting out what is agreed, what not agreed, and brief grounds for the latter. The parties are encouraged, but not required, to use a new precedent (“Precedent R”) for the purposes of the budget discussion report. New Rule 3.13 reads:  (1) Unless the court otherwise orders, all parties except litigants in person must file and exchange budgets— (a) where the stated value of the claim on the claim form is less than £50,000, with their directions questionnaires; or (b) in any other case, not later than 21 days before the first case management conference. (2) In the event that a party files and exchanges a budget under paragraph (1), all other parties, not being litigants in person, must file an agreed budget discussion report no later than 7 days before the first case management conference.   Paragraph 6A of Practice Direction 3E now reads: The budget discussion report required by rule 3.13(2) must set out— (a) those figures which are agreed for each phase; (b) those figures which are not agreed for each phase; and (c) a brief summary of the grounds of dispute. The parties are encouraged to use the Precedent R Budget Discussion Report annexed to this Practice Direction.   These changes are to be welcomed. Earlier exchange of budgets before a CMC should ensure that points of dispute are identified earlier and with greater clarity. Having the extent of agreement and disagreement in a single document also makes sense. Previously one often had to refer to points spread across a stream of correspondence. There remain more fundamental problems with cost budgets which are not addressed by these changes. It remains to be seen whether further reform can make the system as a whole operate smoothly and efficiently.

Fixed Costs and Part 36 Offers

24 February 2016 Thomas-Crockett costs, cpr, General, LP Costs, LP Part 36, personal injury, procedure (0)
What is the effect of a claimant’s ‘beaten’ Part 36 Offer upon their costs in a low value personal injury case within the RTA or EL/PL Protocol where claimants' costs are fixed pursuant to CPR 45? This has been a vexed question since the introduction of the fixed costs regime , but one the Master of the Rolls giving the sole judgment of the Court of Appeal in Broadhurst & Anor v Tan & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 94 has now answered with important and far-reaching consequences for litigators in this area. The Court of Appeal held that Parliament and the draftsmen of the amended Rules intended Part 36 offers to have costs consequences in cases where they were bettered at trial even where costs were usually fixed. This means that, per Rule 36.14(3), where a claimant makes a successful Part 36 offer, the court will, unless it considers it unjust to do so, order that the claimant is entitled to four enhanced benefits including "(b) his costs on the indemnity basis from the date on which the relevant period expired” and thus (as held) the “tension between rule 45.29B and rule 36.14A must, therefore, be resolved in favour of rule 36.14A”, the specific provision taking precedence over the general.    At paragraphs 30 and 31, the Court held that:    “...The starting point is that fixed costs and assessed costs are conceptually different. Fixed costs are awarded whether or not they were incurred, and whether or not they represent reasonable or proportionate compensation for the effort actually expended. On the other hand, assessed costs reflect the work actually done... ...Where a claimant makes a successful Part 36 offer in a section IIIA case, he will be awarded fixed costs to the last staging point provided by rule 45.29C and Table 6B. He will then be awarded costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis in addition from the date that the offer became effective. This does not require any apportionment. It will, however, lead to a generous outcome for the claimant. I do not regard this outcome as so surprising or so unfair to the defendant that it requires the court to equate fixed costs with costs assessed on the indemnity basis... a generous outcome in such circumstances is consistent with rule 36.14(3) as a whole and its policy of providing claimants with generous incentives to make offers, and defendants with countervailing incentives to accept them.” Whether this clarification will lead to an increase or decrease in litigation will remain to be seen. Certainly the current interpretation of this (formerly) knotty issue ought to remind all litigators, but particularly those acting for claimant parties, of the importance of early, well-pitched Part 36 Offers in both encouraging settlement and giving rise to another means of escaping the confines of the fixed costs regime.

Part 36 Offer: derisory or genuine?

12 February 2016 Ian-Miller case report, costs, LP Part 36, personal injury, procedure (0)
The case of Jockey Club Racecourse Ltd v Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd  [2016] EWHC 167 deals with two interesting questions: (1) does a Part 36 offer have to reflect an available outcome in the litigation to be valid? (2) when is it a genuine attempt to settle liability?  The case concerned a defective roof at the racecourse at Epsom. The claimant offered to settle the issue of liability on the basis that the defendant would “accept liability to pay 95% of our client’s claim for damages to be assessed.” The issues of liability were ultimately resolved by consent wholly in the claimant’s favour. The claim was pleaded at in excess of £5m. The judge endorsed the remarks of Henderson J in AB v CD  [2011] EWHC 602  in which he drew the distinction between a genuine offer or ‘merely a lightly disguised request for total capitulation’. A request to a defendant to submit to judgment for the entirety of the relief sought by the claimant was not an ‘offer to settle’ within the meaning of Part 36. An offer to settle had to contain some genuine element of concession on the part of the claimant to which a significant value could be attached in the context of the litigation. Henderson J considered in the context of a road traffic accident that the offer of 95:5 was derisory. In Huck v Robson [2003] 1 WLR 1340 the Court of appeal held that although no judge would apportion liability 95:5, that was irrelevant. The offer reflected the fact that most claimants prefer certainty to the ordeal of trial and uncertainty about its outcome. They did not think it was merely a tactical step to secure the benefit of the incentives provided by the rule but provided the defendant with a real opportunity for settlement. In Jockey Club Racecourse Edwards-Stuart J. found that, although the Part 36 offer of a 95:5 split was not an outcome available to the court, it did not prevent it being a valid offer. Nothing had been changed by the addition to rule 36.17(5) of subparagraph (e) which requires the court to consider whether the offer was a genuine attempt to settle the proceedings. The judge then went on to consider whether it would be unjust to order the consequences which flow from a failure to better a Part 36 offer. He did not order the consequences to flow from 21 days after the date of the offer but allowed the claimant to have costs on the indemnity basis from the earliest date after that by which “the Defendant could reasonably have put itself in a position to make an informed assessment of the strength of the claim on liability”. That conclusion sits uneasily with the comments of the Court of appeal in its harsh decision in Matthews v Metal Improvements Co Inc [2007] C.P. Rep. 27 where the judge was criticised for deciding the case on the basis of reasonableness. The answer to the two questions I posed above is: (1) a Part 36 Offer does not have to reflect an available outcome in the litigation to be valid although this is less likely to be an issue in personal injury where contributory negligence can reduce a finding that a defendant is liable. (2) A genuine attempt to settle liability is one where the offer is not derisory and is one in which there is ‘some genuine element of concession on the part of the claimant, to which a significant value can be attached’. This will depend on the facts of each case although in the context of a personal injury claim an offer of less than a 5% reduction would be risky where the value is not high.