header-logo header-logo

Landmark case resolves costs dispute

15 November 2016
Issue: 7723 / Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-detail

The Court of Appeal has resolved a long-running dispute about which level of pre-action protocol fixed costs apply where a case settles before the disposal hearing.

The case, Bird v Acorn Group [2016] EWCA Civ 1096, was leapfrogged to the Court of Appeal because it affects thousands of cases stayed pending judgment.

The case relates to claims commenced under the pre-action protocol for low value personal injury (employers’ liability and public liability (EL/PL)) or the Road Traffic Act (RTA) protocol. The issue was which level of fixed costs apply where Pt 7 proceedings are launched and a disposal hearing is listed but the claim settles before the disposal hearing takes place.

In Bird, the court held that listing a case for a disposal hearing is a listing for trial and therefore the case settled at the third stage, which has higher fixed costs.

The claim originated from an incident where a spanner fell onto a customer’s hand at a garage.

Helen Lloyd, solicitor at Michael W Halsalls, who acted for Acorn Group, said the decision “provided much needed clarity”.

Matthew Hoe, director at Taylor Rose TTKW, who acted for the unsuccessful appellant, said: “Unfortunately for defendants the main remedy they are left with following this decision is making better offers at Stage 2 under the RTA or EL/PL Protocol, or better post-exit, pre-issue Pt 36 offers.

“That will either encourage settlement or give the defendant better protection. If such offers are accepted outside the relevant period but after listing of a disposal hearing, the defendant will benefit from the increase in fixed costs. The defendant gets assessed costs on late acceptance, capped at the difference between the fixed costs applicable when the relevant period expired and the fixed costs applicable at the time of settlement.”

Hoe said thousands of cases were stayed for two reasons. 

“First, the judgment being appealed was from February 2015 so cases built up waiting for the appeal,” he said.

“Second, the district judge in the County Court at Birkenhead had said that court centre was handling up to 50 of these cases per day. In Birkenhead, unlike most other county court hearing centres, there is a triage process which results in a great many claims being listed for a disposal hearing.”

Issue: 7723 / Categories: Legal News , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll