I'm interested in…

  • Strategy & Procedure
  • Catastrophic Injury
  • Professional Indemnity
  • Motor
  • Fraud
  • Disease
  • Liability
  • Commercial Insurance
  • Costs
  • Local Authority
  • Scotland

Jackson in Action - case law

In our regular monthly round up of cases we look at the effects of the changes to the Civil Procedure Rules under the Jackson Reforms:

Relief from sanctions/request for further information: In Griffith & Anor v Gourgey & Ors (2017) the Court of Appeal once again considered a relief from sanctions application. Having failed to answer a request for information, the court made an unless order against the appellant, ordering the defence to be struck out in the event that there was non-compliance. The appellants filed what purported to be a response to the request, only for the respondents to challenge whether the responses complied with the order. The appellants applied for relief from sanctions from the unless order and were given further time to file a response to the request, which complied with the terms of the order. A further response was filed, but the respondents argued that the responses still did not comply with the original order. The appellants applied once again for relief from sanctions. The Court of Appeal held that for the second application for relief to succeed there had to be a material change in the circumstance since the initial relief from sanctions application. The respondents were still in breach of the order against them and nothing had changed since the first application for relief. 5/7/17. You can access the judgment on BAILII

Costs budgeting/costs management orders: In Kalma & Ors v Tonkolili Iron Ore & Ors (2017) a rare instance of the Court conducting the costs budgeting process on paper by way of written submissions, the Court considered the parties' budgets in a class action, Foskett J having ordered costs budgeting take place on paper. Senior Master Fontaine sat as assessor. The claimants' budget was reduced from £7.46m to £5.42m, with estimated costs being reduced by over £2m. 21/6/17 DWF act for Tonkolili Iron Ore and you can read more about the case in our legal update

Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting/Definition of "damages for personal injuries": In Howe v Motor Insurers Bureau (2017), the Court of Appeal were asked to consider whether a claimant in a failed claim against the MIB could claim protection against having to pay the Defendant's costs under the QOCS regime. The claimant appealed against the decision that a claim under the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance)(Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regs 2003 was not a claim for injury, for the purpose of CPR r.44.13. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that an individual bringing the claim under the Regs had to have equivalence to a claimant who brought a claim against a driver that was insured. 6/7/17. You can access the judgment on BAILII

Low value personal injury claims PAP/recoverable costs: In Prescott (A Child by his Litigation Friend) v Trustees of the Pencarrow 2012 Maintenance Fund (2017), District Judge Richards sitting in Plymouth County Court was asked to consider whether a low value personal injury claim was excluded from the RTA Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) and also the EL/PL PAP and whether, accordingly, the claimant should be entitled to recover costs on an hourly rate basis. The defendant argued that only fixed recoverable costs should apply. The claimant had been a passenger in a vehicle that had collided with a tree. It had been argued that the claim was exempt from all three of the PAPs. The claimant had urged the court to adopt a literal interpretation of the meaning of the EL/PL and RTA protocols, but held that to do so would result in a perverse outcome, with the claimant's solicitors receiving a windfall of significantly increased costs. 12/6/17

For further information please contact Marcus Davies, Professional Support Executive, on 0161 603 5146

This information is intended as a general discussion surrounding the topics covered and is for guidance purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. DWF is not responsible for any activity undertaken based on this information.