header-logo header-logo

14 August 2009 / Richard Scorer
Issue: 7382 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury , Limitation
printer mail-detail

Damage limitation

Claimants cannot afford to lose part of their damages in legal costs, says Richard Scorer

Assuming the claimant is successful, who should pay the legal costs in a personal injury (PI) case? Should costs be paid by the defendant, by the claimant, or should they be apportioned between both and if so in what proportions?

The traditional rule in civil cases in England and Wales is that costs follow the event—the loser pays the winner’s reasonable costs. A successful claimant in a PI case can expect to recover most, if not all of his legal costs from the defendant—the tortfeasor, or, in practice, the tortfeasor’s insurers. This contrasts with the position in employment tribunal cases, for example, where costs are not recoverable inter partes and a successful claimant can expect to forfeit some part of his damages to meet the costs of the claim. The issue has now come to the fore in the debate on Lord Justice Jackson’s review of civil litigation costs. One area put forward for consultation by Jackson LJ is

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Senior associate joins family law team in London

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Firm appoints chief financial officer as it expands Essex office footprint

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

NEWS
A landmark ruling has delivered the first judicial application of the UK’s anti-SLAPP regime and provided fresh guidance on abusive litigation
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
back-to-top-scroll