header-logo header-logo

Damage limitation

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll