Civil way: 12 May 2017

The small claims costs protection after allocation applies not only up to and including the final hearing but to any appeal (CPR 27.14(1)). This leaves the represented loser rummaging for some unreasonable behaviour (within CPR 27.14(2)(g)) with which to sway the judge. So what does unreasonable behaviour mean? Like an elephant, perhaps difficult to describe but you know it when you see it.

In Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269, [2017] All ER (D) 101 (Apr) it was decided that this dictum from Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205, [1994] 3 All ER 848 (albeit dealing with wasted costs) should give sufficient guidance on what it meant: ‘Conduct cannot be described as unreasonable simply because it leads in the event to an unsuccessful result or because other more cautious legal representatives would have acted differently. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation. If so, the course