Index Portal & Fixed Costs Cases | Sarah Robson Barrister
top of page
Library

Index of Cases on Fixed and Portal Costs

There are now a number of cases concerning fixed costs on and around the MOJ Portals. 

They are sub-divided by topic/theme below. 

 

Where a case establishes more than one point, it may appear in more than one sub-section. 

 

Scroll down to the section your require, or click on the 'Topic' links below to see a list of relevant cases.  Click on the case name for more details and for a copy of the judgment.

Search the site here:

1. Common Law Principles do not apply

Draper v Newport

(Common Law Mistake does not apply in the Portals)

 

Fitton v Ageas

(Common Law Mistake does not apply in the Portals)

 

Harris v Brown

(Common Law Mistake does apply in the Portals)

 

Kilby v Brown

(Waiver & Affirmation do not apply in the Portals )

 

Purcell v McGarry

(First Tier Appeal - Offer and Acceptance does not apply in the Portals)

 

Patel v Fortis

(Non-Portal CPRs do not apply in the Portals)

2. Individual Heads of Loss

Bewicke-Copley v Ibeh

(Agreed individual heads of loss are binding)

 

Bushell v Parry

(First Tier Appeal - Agreed individual heads of loss are not binding)

 

Maddocks v Lyne

(First Tier Appeal - Agreed individual heads of loss are normally binding, entire Portal settlements are binding)

 

Phillips v Willis [2016] EWCA Civ 401

(Irrational for judge to order case out of Portal, individual heads of loss can be agreed)

3. SIIIA CPR 45 Fixed costs on leaving the Portal

Melloy & Anor v UK Insurance Ltd [2002] EW Misc 4 (CC)

Where there is more than one claimant in a SIIIA claim, each party is entitled to a set of SIIIA fixed costs

​

West v Burton [2021] EWCA Civ 1005

(SIIIA costs do not apply where the claimant dies whilst the claim is in the Portal)

 

Coleman v Townsend (Master Haworth, SCCO, 13.07.20)

(What disbursements can be allowed post-Cham in SIIIA cases)

 

Hislop v Perde: Kaur v Committee (for the time being) of Ramgarhia Board Leicester [2018] EWCA Civ 1726

(No indemnity costs on late acceptance of a Part 36 where SIIIA applies)

 

Broadhurst v Tan; Taylor v Smith [2016] EWCA Civ 94

(SIIIA Indemnity costs are hourly rate not fixed)

 

Qader v Esure Services Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1109

(Exception to SIIIA costs where allocated to multi-track)

 

Sharp v Leeds City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 33

(SIIIA fixed costs for interim applications apply even for Pre-Action Disclosure applications)

 

Bird v Acorn [2016] EWCA Civ 1096

(Re stage of fixed costs)

 

Chapman v Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

(A court has the power to vary quantum of fixed SIIIA costs for conduct)

 

Petit v MIB & 5 Ors

(Where claim not properly started in the Portal, SIIIA costs did not follow)

 

Cham (by their Litigation Friend Laura Martin) v Aldred

(Deals with disbursements under SIIIA)

​

Santiago v MIB [2023] EWCA Civ 838

(Interpreter's fees are recoverable under SIIIA)

​

4. Part 36 offers and SIIIA Fixed costs

Cookson v Manchester City Council

(Acceptance of a Part 36 offer removes the court's powers under CPR 45.24 to limit the claimant to Portal costs)

 

Ansell v AT&T

(Acceptance of a Part 36 offer does not remove the court's powers under CPR 45.24 to limit the claimant to Portal costs)

5. When CPR 45.24 can be applied

Brown v Ezeugwa

(First Tier Appeal - Fixed costs can be awarded on assessment; not limited to when order for costs made/agreed)

 

Davies v Greenway

(Appeal to SCCO - Fixed costs can be awarded on assessment and standard basis does not exclude fixed costs)

 

Williams v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy [2018] EWCA Civ 852

(Where CPR 45.24 could not be used, but the court could get to the same result otherwise)

 

Timothy Taylor & 27 Ors v ZStage (UK) Ltd Real China Restaurant

(Following total non-use of the Portal, an agreement by way of Tomlin Order to settle damages counted as a judgment for the purposes of CPR 45.24, and the court ordered the Defendant to pay no more than portal costs under CPR 45.24(2)(c).)

The Claimant indicated they were going to appeal, but ultimately did not do so

6. Leaving the Portals

Patel v Fortis

(Leaving for technical non-compliance only not reasonable)

 

Modhwadia v Modhwadia

(First Tier Appeal - Failure to explain reason for offer not fatal)

 

Ilahi v Usman

(First Tier Appeal - CPR 45.24 engaged even when case automatically left, where that departure was caused by an act which the Claimant elected to take)

 

Doyle v Manchester Audi

(Omission to act causing claim to leave Portal was an election to leave)

 

Payne v Scott

(Where judge ordered case out of Portal was still Claimant's election to leave)

 

Uppal v Daudia

(No obligation to make offer in Portal, unreasonable to leave for that, D's Costs awarded on indemnity basis following finding that C acted unreasonably)

 

Rafiania v All Type Scaffolding Ltd

(No test of reasonableness for total failure to use the Portal)

 

Monteith v Carroll

(Making a pre-med offer did not justify leaving the Portal)

 

Hussain v Wardle

(Claim left Portal after Claimant failed to include mandatory information in the CNF)

 

Bursuc v EUI Ltd

(Not unreasonable to leave Portal Protocol because became too complex, applications to limit C to Portal costs cannot be made until claim concluded)

​

7. Cannot use Hindsight or Speculation

Raja v Day & MIB HHJ Gregory, Liverpool CC, 02.03.15

(Cannot take into account would have left the Portal anyway)

​

Tennant v Cottrell

(Cannot change reason for leaving, nor retrospectively justify reason)

​

Dawrant v Part & Parcel Network Ltd

(First Tier Appeal - Cannot use hindsight when a case has left the Portal)

​

Ryan v Hackett [2020] EWHC 288 (QB)

(Could take into account what happens after a claim leaves the Portal when determining costs on the facts of this case)

8. Using the Portals

London Borough of Islington v Bourous, Davis & Yousaf

[2022] EWCA Civ 1242

Approved Mulholland v Hughes that a party cannot argue something in Stage 3 not raised in Stage 2, and commented that the White Book note re Phillips v Willis is not accurate.

 

Wickes Building Supplies Ltd v Blair (No.2) Costs [2020] EWCA Civ 17

The Court of Appeal agreed with Sarah Robson that QOCS applied to this second tier appeal, preferring the reasoning of Edis J in Parker v Butler [2016] EWHC 1251 (QB) over that in both Wagenaar v Weekend Travel Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1105 and Hawksford Trustees Jersey Ltd v Stella Global UK Ltd and another [2012] EWCA Civ 987.  Not to apply QOCS on appeals would deny access to justice.

 

(1) Akram v Aviva Insurance Ltd and (2) Mahmood v Tillott, HHJ Jarman QC, Wrexham CC, 29.09.21

(The Claimants in both appeals relied on emails from their solicitors uploaded in Stage 2 at the Stage 3 hearings.  The Defendant appealed both arguing no weight should be given to the contents of those emails, and that the information therein could only be provided by way of witness statement.  HHJ Jarman QC upheld both lower court decisions finding that this was appropriate in the fairly rough justice of the Portal.)

 

Mulholland v Hughes HHJ Freedman, Newcastle CC, 18.09.15

(First Tier Appeal - Offers in the Portal do not amount to admissions, Claimants have to repay over-payment of damages in non-settlement payment, Arguments at Stage 3 limited by those in Stage 2 pack)

 

Khan v Alliance Insurance Plc HHJ Gosnell, Leeds CC, 01.06.20

(Judge cannot raise an issue in Stage 3 not raised by the parties in Stage 2; Defendant can only challenge claim in limited way in the Portal)

 

Mozzano v Riwa

(Multiple CNFs - how to deal)

 

Lamb v Gregory

(Witness statements permitted under the [2010] Protocol)

 

Raja v Day & MIB HHJ Gregory, Liverpool CC, 02.03.15

(First Tier Appeal - Default position on finding a Portal breach is fixed costs, burden shifts to Claimant to show why should not apply)

​

Smith v Owen

(Unreasonable exit for non payment of disbursement)

​

Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Yavuz & Ors [2017] EWHC 3088 (QB) (6 Dec 2017)

(Contempt re completion of CNF)

​

David Grant v Dawn Meats (UK) [2018] EWCA Civ 2212

(Limitation, Stays and Service of a Portal Claim form)

​

9. Montreal Convention Claims

Mead v British Airways PLC

(The Portal does not apply to Montreal Convention Claims)

​

McKendry v British Airways PLC

(The Portal does not apply to Montreal Convention Claims)

10. Are Portal Admissions binding outside the Portal?

Ullah v Jon

(Portal Admissions are binding outside the Portals)

 

Malak v Nasim

(Portal Admissions are not binding outside the Portals)

 

Chimel v Chibwana & Williams

(First Tier Appeal - Portal Admission is binding outside the Portal, Ullah and Malak considered, Ullah preferred)

 

Maddocks v Lyne

(First Tier Appeal - Entire Portal settlements are binding)

 

Mukadam v Nazir

(First Tier Appeal - side note on Portal admission noting was made without driver's instructions did not change effect of admission made by employer's insurers)

 

Mullen v Nelson Insurance Co Ltd

(First Tier Appeal - Portal admission made by Insurer of Employer was binding on Employee, Chimel followed)

11. Portal Offers outside the Portal

Purcell v McGarry

(Portal offers are open for acceptance in Stage 3)

 

Akinrodoye v Esure

(Portal offers are open for acceptance even after Part 7 proceedings issued)

 

Ingrid Smith v Greater Manchester Buses South Ltd

(Protocol offers only remain open for acceptance after a claim leaves the Portal.)

 

Castle v Andrews & Dickens Ltd

(Protocol offers are open for acceptance after a claim leaves the Portal, not Portal offers)

13. Interim Payments

Luvin v Ageas Insurance Ltd

(Sets out the rules and procedure on interim payments)

 

Ampratwum v Zbigniew Samajeden & Esure

(special rules on interim payments for vehicle related damages - judgment not available)

14. Range of Prognosis Period given

Dominic v Martin

(First Portal appeal, established that should award in middle where range of prognosis given in absence of witness evidence)

15. Soft Tissue Injuries Claims

Mason v Laing

The Portal rules are strict; if in a soft tissue injury claim the first report is not disclosed before subsequent ones, a Claimant cannot rely on the subsequent reports.

 

Greyson v Fuller

A claimant failed to disclose a first report before a subsequent report, so were held to be in breach of para 7.8A of the RTA Protocol.  However, the judge allowed the claimant Relief from Sanction.  On appeal the High Court said the proper sanction was costs, not exclusion of the evidence.

​

​

Moesaid v Calder

Where a subsequent report took the claim out of the definition of soft tissue injury claim, it did not matter when the reports were disclosed, the special rules on soft tissue injuries did not apply.

16. Exceptional Circumstances Costs - CPR 45.29J

Ferri v Gill [2019] EWHC 952 (QB)

(Considered what the basket of cases was in a CPR 45.29J application, and test was a high bar)

 

Jackson v Barfoot Farms

(Whether agreement to pay costs on the standard basis excluded the award of fixed costs, and non-fixed costs were awarded as the case was exceptional per CPR 45.29J)

 

Crompton v Meadowcroft (Costs ) [2021] EW Misc 20 (24 Aug 21)

(CPR 45.29J Exceptional circumstances costs awarded in case with multiple experts, 13 reports, 11 sets of records, MRI scans, multiple surgeries caused, CBT & Physio needed, Ogden calculations, Smith & Manchester calculation)

 

Lloyd v 2 Sisters Poultry Ltd (Costs) [2019] EW Misc (29 Jan 19)

(Exceptional circumstances costs awarded under CPR 45.29J where C had permanent disability, complex loss of earnings claim/Billet calculation using Ogden tables, extensive specials, very long witness statements)

 

Baker v Flynn

(The lower court awarded exceptional circumstances costs under CPR 45.29J - the fact that liability was in dispute was a major consideration, there were also issues under the Equality Act, use of Ogden tables, pension loss and so forth.  Upheld on appeal for same reasons)

 

West v Olakanpo [2020] EWHC 3830 (QB)

(Exceptional circumstances costs awarded at first instance for fundamental dishonesty, overturned on appeal as evidence not tested in cross-examination)

Submissions gratefully received

Sarah Robson is always very happy to receive any cases on matters related to fixed costs to add to her website.

bottom of page