A rugby spectator who exaggerated his injuries has had 15% knocked off his recoverable costs
The man was hit by a falling
rugby post. He claimed the injury made him unfit for his job as an independent
financial advisor, particularly on psychological/psychiatric grounds. The
defendant admitted liability but contended that the man was no less fit than
before the accident.
The claimant’s exaggeration was
found to have unnecessarily prolonged a seven-day trial involving numerous
witnesses.
Delivering her judgment in Brian
Morrow v Shrewsbury Rugby Club [2020] EWHC 999 (QB), Mrs Justice Farley
said she had considered whether a 15% reduction ‘would be too little to be
meaningful. If so, it could encourage other litigants to take up
disproportionate court time in the hope of gaining some comparatively small
costs advantage’, but concluded that the overall costs were high enough that
15% would be ‘meaningful. In the absence of dishonesty, the claimant's
exaggeration is not the sort of egregious misconduct that in itself deserves a
punitive costs order.’
