Hadley v Przybylo [2024] EWCA Civ 250 concerned a traffic accident in which the claimant, Tom Hadley, suffered catastrophic injuries including a traumatic brain injury and now requires 24-hour care.
At first instance, Master McCloud found as a matter of principle that a fee earner’s attendance at rehabilitation meetings was an irrecoverable cost. She gave ‘leapfrog’ permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal found for the appellant that the test applied was incorrect and this element of costs is recoverable in principle.
Chris Barnes KC from Exchange Chambers who acted for the claimant, said: ‘The point determined was one of potentially real significance to the manner in which catastrophic injury claims are handled—specifically whether a claimant’s solicitor can recover the costs of attending meetings connected with the claimant’s rehabilitation, whether with the case manager or financial deputy.’
‘The judgment is a significant win for claimants and their rehabilitation. It goes far beyond restoring what might have been the position prior to the first instance hearing. No longer can defendants challenge these costs on the point of principle.
‘Further, in reiterating the approach of In Re Gibson’s Settlement Trusts the court has steered away from the potentially narrower “progressive” test that had become increasingly pervasive. Finally, there is helpful guidance as to the phase of the budget in which such costs should be placed.’
In Re Gibson’s [1981] Ch 179 found that costs can be recoverable if they relate to something of use and service in the action, are relevant to an issue and can be attributed to the defendant’s conduct (utility, relevance and attributability).
Simon Roberts, partner at Gamlins Law, acting for the claimant, said: ‘This is a hugely important ruling for the personal injury and clinical negligence profession.
‘The judgment provides clarity regarding the recoverability of rehabilitation-related costs and, importantly, ensures that claimants, often in extremely complex matters involving catastrophic injury, can gain the necessary support and assistance throughout their case.’
The court did not consider the reasonableness or proportionality of the costs involved.
