Search Results

Index of Cases to do with all types of Fixed and Portal costs, grouped by topics, with case summaries and link to judgments where available. Including Asmat Bi v Tesco Underwriting Ltd on the October 23 extention to fixed costs Index Fixed Costs Cases List of Topics New Fixed Costs cases from Oct 2023 Soft Tissue Injury Claims Common Law Principles do not apply in Portals Individual Heads of Loss in Portals Pre-Oct 23 SIIIA CPR 45 - Fixed costs on leaving the Portals Part 36 offers and Pre-Oct 23 SIIIA Fixed costs When CPR 45x.24/CPR 45.35 can be applied Leaving the Portals Cannot use Hindsight or Speculation in MOJ Portals Using the Portals Montreal Convention Claims and the Portals Are Portal Admissions binding outside the Portal? Portal Offers outside the Portal Portal Exceptional Circumstances Costs CPR 45x.29J Miscellaneous matters - Interim Payments, Montreal Convention claims, Range of Prognosis, Offer of zero Search the site here: Oct 23+ New Fixed Costs Cases Asmat Bi v Tesco Underwriting Ltd HHJ Sephton KC, Manchester CC, Aug 2024, claim no K04MA298 Whilst only a first tier hearing, Asmat Bi v Tesco Underwriting is useful as a point of reference given the paucity of case law on the October 23 extension to fixed costs. Here the court was considering the incidence of costs in a case where a non-personal injury claim had settled by acceptance of a Part 36 offer without the need for proceedings, and notably before the commencement of the new fixed costs regime. Costs could not be agreed, and so the claimant brought Part 8 proceedings. HHJ Sephton found that the Amendment Rules (SI 572/2023) were procedural in nature, and therefore followed the general convention that they were retrospective in effect. He found the Claimant's entitlement to costs only crystallised after the costs had been assessed, allowed or agreed. Thus the case fell to be decided under the costs rules then rather than at the point of settlement, which was under the extended fixed costs. This case is not without its critics. Clearly the parties contracted for settlement on the basis they would pay the costs applicable at the time of settlement. Clarity from a higher court would be very much appreciated! Judgment Click here for a copy of the judgment Soft Tissue Injuries Claims Mason v Laing HHJ Gosnell, Bradford CC, 20th Jan 20 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 [2022] EWHC 211 (QB) 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 DDJ Kube, Manchester CC, 27th Aug 2021 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. Abdulmalik v Calder DJ Carter, Manchester CC, 2nd Feb 2022 There was no requirement for the first report to be disclosed before the second report was obtained, only disclosed. However, compliance with the order of disclosure required did not mean that the cost of the report would automatically be allowed - the court could still disallow it for other reasons. The time to consider whether the claim was a soft tissue injury claim was when the second report was being disclosed. Common Law Principles do not apply in the Portal Draper v Newport DJ Baker, Birkenhead CC, 3rd Sept 2014 (Common Law Mistake does not apply in the Portals) Fitton v Ageas DJ Parker, Liverpool CC, 8th Nov 2018 (Common Law Mistake does not apply in the Portals) Harris v Brown HHJ Davey QC, Bradford CC, 18th Jun 2019 (Common Law Mistake does apply in the Portals) Kilby v Brown DJ Peake, Birkenhead CC, 10th Feb 2014 (Waiver & Affirmation do not apply in the Portals) Purcell v McGarry HHJ Gore QC, Liverpool CC, Friday 7th Dec 2012 (First Tier Appeal - Offer and Acceptance does not apply in the Portals) Patel v Fortis Recorder Morgan, Leicester CC, 5th Dec 2011 (Non-Portal CPRs do not apply in the Portals) Individual Heads of Loss Bewicke-Copley v Ibeh DJ Vincent, Oxford CC, 4th Jun 2015 (Agreed individual heads of loss are binding) Bushell v Parry HHJ Gregory, Liverpool CC, 15th March 2015 (First Tier Appeal - Agreed individual heads of loss are not binding) Maddocks v Lyn e HHJ Wood QC, Chester CC, 22nd January 2016 (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) Old SIIIA CPR 45x 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, 13th July 2020 (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 DJ Swindley, Bolton County Court, 15th Jun 2016 (A court has the power to vary quantum of fixed SIIIA costs for conduct) Petit v MIB & 5 Ors DJ Pollard, Brighton CC, 15th Feb 2017 (Where claim not properly started in the Portal, SIIIA costs did not follow) Cham (by their Litigation Friend Laura Martin) v Aldred [2019] EWCA Civ 1780 (Deals with disbursements under SIIIA) Santiago v MIB [2023] EWCA Civ 838 (Interpreter's fees are recoverable under SIIIA) Part 36 offers & (old) SIIIA Fixed costs Cookson v Manchester City Council HHJ Main QC, Manchester CC, 28.04.17 (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 DDJ Lynch, Slough County Court, 12th June 2017 (first instance) HHJ Clarke, Oxford County Court, 14th December 2017 (on appeal) (Acceptance of a Part 36 offer does not remove the court's powers under CPR 45.24 to limit the claimant to Portal costs) When CPR 45.24 can be applied (now CPR 45.35) Brown v Ezeugwa HHJ Simpkiss (Designated Circuit Judge) with DJ Lethem (Regional Costs Judge) as assessor Tunbridge Wells CC, 23rd January 2014 (First Tier Appeal - Fixed costs can be awarded on assessment; not limited to when order for costs made/agreed) Davies v Greenway Master Simons, SCCO, 30th Oct 2013 (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 DJ Griffith, Birmingham CC, 3rd Sept 2019 (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). Sarah Robson for the Defendant, against Roger Mallalieu.) The Claimant indicated they were going to appeal, but ultimately did not do so. Leaving the Portals Patel v Fortis Recorder Morgan, Leicester CC, 5th Dec 2011 (Leaving for technical non-compliance only not reasonable) Modhwadia v Modhwadia DJ Atkinson Leicester CC 25th Jan 2014; reviewed DJ Atkinson 29th Sept 2014; on appeal HHJ Hampton 20th Jan 2015 (First Tier Appeal - Failure to explain reason for offer not fatal) Ilahi v Usman HHJ Platts, Manchester CC, 29th Nov 2012 (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 DJ Matharu, Manchester CC, 25th Jun 2013 (Omission to act causing claim to leave Portal was an election to leave) Payne v Scott DDJ Smedley, Birkenhead CC, 13th Jul 2015 (Where judge ordered case out of Portal was still Claimant's election to leave) Uppal v Daudia DDJ Matthews, Leicester CC, 14th May 2012 (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 DDJ Corscadden, Manchester CC, 14th Jan 2015 (No test of reasonableness for total failure to use the Portal) Monteith v Carroll Liverpool CC, 17th October 2012 (Making a pre-med offer did not justify leaving the Portal) Hussain v Wardle Stoke on Trent CC, DJ Rank, 25th Feb 2017 (Claim left Portal after Claimant failed to include mandatory information in the CNF) Bursuc v EUI Ltd DJ Revere, Clerkenwell & Shoreditch CC, 30th May 2018 (Not unreasonable to leave Portal Protocol because became too complex, applications to limit C to Portal costs cannot be made until claim concluded) 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 DJ Jenkinson, Liverpool CC, 11th December 2014 (Cannot change reason for leaving, nor retrospectively justify reason) Dawrant v Part & Parcel Network Ltd HHJ Parker, Liverpool CC, 28th Apr 2016 Sitting with Regional Costs Judge Jenkinson, as Assessor (First Tier Appeal - Cannot use hindsight when a case has left the Portal) Ryan v Hack ett [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) 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 DDJ Dawson, Birkenhead CC, 24th April 2012 Multiple CNFs - how to deal. 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 Birkenhead CC, DJ Campbell, 30th Nov 2016 Unreasonable exit for non payment of disbursement. Liverpoo l 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. Portal Offers outside the Portal Purcell v McGarry HHJ Gore QC, Liverpool CC, Friday 7th Dec 2012 Portal offers are open for acceptance in Stage 3 Akinrodoye v Esure DJ Goodchild, Romford CC, 16th Feb 2015 Portal offers are open for acceptance even after Part 7 proceedings issued Ingrid Smith v Greater Manchester Buses South Ltd HHJ Main QC, Manchester CC, 17th Dec 2015 Protocol offers only remain open for acceptance after a claim leaves the Portal. Castle v Andrews & Dickens Ltd DJ Doyle, Birkenhead CC, 21st Nov 2019 (Protocol offers are open for acceptance after a claim leaves the Portal, not Portal offers Are Portal Admissions binding outside the Portal? Ullah v Jon DJ Parker, Croydon CC, 20th Mar 2013 Portal Admissions are binding outside the Portals Malak v Nasim DJ Woods, Watford CC, December 2014 Portal Admissions are not binding outside the Portals Chimel v Chibwana & Williams HHJ Simpkiss, Reigate CC, 31st October 2016 First Tier Appeal - Portal Admission is binding outside the Portal, Ullah and Malak considered, Ullah preferred Maddocks v Lyne HHJ Wood QC, Chester CC, 22nd Jan 2016 First Tier Appeal - Entire Portal settlements are binding Mukadam v Nazir HHJ Khan, Preston CC, 14th May 2020 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 HHJ Wood QC, Liverpool CC, 2nd Oct 2020 F irst Tier Appeal - Portal admission made by Insurer of Employer was binding on Employee, Chimel followed 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 DJ Jackson, Canterbury County Court, 29th Nov 2017 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 Miscellaneous cases Offer of Zero is a Valid Offer Dickinson v Langford Birkenhead CC, 14th Feb 2013 Piotr Glazer v Nathan Reid DDJ Johnson, Liverpool CC, 2nd Mar 2012 Range of Prognosis Period given Dominic v Martin HHJ Stewart QC, Manchester CC, 21st Jul 2011 (First Portal appeal, established that should award in middle where range of prognosis given in absence of witness evidence) Interim Payments Luvin v Ageas Insurance Ltd DJ Doyle, Birkenhead CC, 17th Sept 2015 (Sets out the rules and procedure on interim payments) Ampratwum v Zbigniew Samajeden & Esure Birkenhead CC, 5th Jun 2013 (special rules on interim payments for vehicle related damages - judgment not available) Montreal Convention Claims Mead v British Airways PLC DJ Moss, Manchester County Court, 15th Jan 2018 (The Portal does not apply to Montreal Convention Claims) McKendry v Br itish Airways PLC DJ Baldwin (sitting as Regional Costs Judge) Liverpool County Court, 16th May 2018 (The Portal does not apply to Montreal Convention Claims) Submissions gratefully received Sarah Robson is always very happy to receive any cases on matters related to fixed costs to add to her website.

Case law on the Status of Portal Admissions within that claim, within a counter-claim, outside of that claim, brought by employers insurers, etc. Are Portal Admissions binding outside the Portal? Ullah v Jon DJ Parker, Croydon CC, 20th Mar 2013 (Portal Admissions are binding outside the Portals) Malak v Nasim DJ Woods, Watford CC, December 2014 (Portal Admissions are not binding outside the Portals) Chim el v Chibwana & Williams HHJ Simpkiss, Reigate CC, 31st October 2016 (First Tier Appeal - Portal Admission is binding outside the Portal, Ullah and Malak considered, Ullah preferred) Maddocks v Lyne HHJ Wood QC, Chester CC, 22nd Jan 2016 (First Tier Appeal - Entire Portal settlements are binding) Mukadam v Nazir HHJ Khan, Preston CC, 14th May 2020 (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 HHJ Wood QC, Liverpool CC, 2nd Oct 2020 (First Tier Appeal - Portal admission made by Insurer of Employer was binding on Employee, Chimel followed) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index Search the site here:

Purcell v McGarry - the court held that offer and acceptance have no place in the MOJ Portal - it is a stand-alone code. Key Point Contract Law, including offer and acceptance, has no place in MOJ Portal Protocol cases Purcell v McGarry HHJ Gore QC, Liverpool CC, Friday 7th December 2012 The issue here on first tier appeal was whether a Defendant could accept an offer after the end of Stage 2. The judge held that a Portal offer remains open for acceptance after the end of Stage 2. Importantly he noted that contract rules such as offer and acceptance have no place in the Portal arena. This case is important as it establishes that a Portal offer does not automatically cease to be open for acceptance. It has been followed by other cases which have held how offers made in the Portal remain open for acceptance even after Part 7 proceedings have been issued. It also makes it clear that the Portal is 'its own man' and thus contract law does not apply. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Portal Admissions binding outside? Disapplication of Common Law

Phillips v Willis [2016] EWCA Civ 401 - the Court of Appeal held that it was irrational for a judge to order a claim out of the portal. They also confirmed that individual heads of loss can be agreed in the Portal. Key Point Unreasonable to remove a claim from the Portal for a small Credit Hire dispute Phillips v Willis [2016] EWCA Civ 401 This claim went through the MOJ Portal where some heads of loss were agreed in Stage 2, but not all. Only credit hire remained when the matter went to Stage 3. Despite the sum in dispute being less than £500, and the dispute over that sum being very narrow, the judge of his own volition ordered the claim out of the Portal with a long list of disproportionate directions which would have cost vastly more than was reasonable for the sum in dispute and nature of the dispute between the parties. The Claimant appealed and it was upheld at first tier appeal. However, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision, noting that the decision to remove the case from the Portal was irrational in that case. Clearly, it was unnecessary and unreasonable in this case to remove the matter from the Portal, especially where neither party wanted this, and especially with the extensive directions given which were completely disproportionate. This is not to say it would be unreasonable and irrational in all circumstances, but it would appear that this is not expected to be routine. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Tennant v Cottrell DJ Jenkinson, Liverpool CC, 11th December 2014 - you cannot change your reason for breach of Portal after the event, and there can be no 'Retrospective Justification' of an earlier Portal breach by what happened later. Key Points Cannot change reason for breach of Portal and there can be no 'Retrospective Justification' of an earlier Portal breach Tennant v Cottrell DJ Jenkinson, Liverpool CC, 11th December 2014 The Claimant removed this claim from the Portal when the Defendant made an offer of zero for one head of loss. Part 7 proceedings were issued in which the Defendant sought allocation to the fast track, and for the Claimant to attend for cross-examination. Costs went to Detailed Assessment. In Replies to Points of Dispute, the Claimant tried to argue for the first time that the claim had left the Portal because it was too complex, and pointed to the fact that the Defendant had sought to cross-examine the Claimant and allocate the claim. However, DJ Jenkinson found that the reason the Claimant had left the Portal was completely clear. That was set out in their letter at the time they left the Portal, stating they were doing so because the Defendant had offered zero on one head of loss. The judge said that you could not change your reason for leaving the Portal later, and there could be no argument that a claim 'would have left anyway'. o allow such an argument would be to allow a Claimant to 'retrospectively justify' their earlier unreasonable exit. He would not allow this. The Claimant was restricted to Portal costs. Claimants often try to argue that a claim 'would have left the Portal anyway'. However as this case makes clear, a party cannot change their reasons for leaving later, nor can they rely on anything which happened after a breach of the Portal when assessing whether they had acted unreasonably under CPR 45.24(2). Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Patel v Fortis - Recorder Morgan, Leicester CC, 5th December 2011. The first reported judgment on the Portal. Here the court held that Leaving the Portal for technical non-compliance only is not reasonable. Also that non-Portal CPRs have no application in Portal Protocol cases. Key Points Leaving the Portal for technical non-compliance only is not reasonable and Non-Portal CPRs have no application in Portal Protocol cases Patel v Fortis Recorder Morgan, Leicester CC, 5th December 2011 The Claimant removed this case from the Portal because the Defendant had not sent an acknowledgement of the claim within 24 hours, which is a mandatory requirement. The Claimant then issued Part 7 proceedings, although the parties later settled quantum without a hearing. The issue was what costs should apply. The Defendant argued firstly that they had acknowledged the claim in time, but in the alternative, the claimant had acted unreasonably and should be restricted to Portal costs under CPR 45.36(2)(b)(i) [now CPR 45.24(2)(b)(i)]. The Defendant argued that whether the CNF was a claim form or either way, their Insurer Response sent 48 hours later (which it was accepted counted as an acknowledgement) was not late. The court held that the CPR rules on service did not apply to service of the CNF; the Portal was a highly stand-alone code and one could not simply import non-Portal CPRs into it. Thus the fact that the CNF had been sent after did not make any difference. The Portal rules required an acknowledgement to be sent the next day, whatever time of day the CNF had been sent. However, the court did find that the Claimant had acted unreasonably in leaving the Portal and issuing Part 7 proceedings. Whilst there was a breach, it was a technical breach only and made no real difference. If the Claimant solicitors had been genuinely concerned to see if their claim had been received, they could have checked by either looking on the Portal or contacting the Defendant, but they did nothing. The judge held that it was unreasonable to leave the Portal for a technical breach only, it was not reasonable, and he restricted the Claimant to Portal costs. The court also considered the application of CPR 45.36 (now CPR 45.24) as the matter had settled, so there was no judgment. The court had no difficulty in finding that the rule applied equally to cases which settled as well as to those where was given. there would be a lacuna in the rules and it would discourage settlement. Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

This is a Title 02 This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Want to view and manage all your collections? Click on the Content Manager button in the Add panel on the left. Here, you can make changes to your content, add new fields, create dynamic pages and more. You can create as many collections as you need. Your collection is already set up for you with fields and content. Add your own, or import content from a CSV file. Add fields for any type of content you want to display, such as rich text, images, videos and more. You can also collect and store information from your site visitors using input elements like custom forms and fields. Be sure to click Sync after making changes in a collection, so visitors can see your newest content on your live site. Preview your site to check that all your elements are displaying content from the right collection fields. Judgment Go back to Main Index Go back to Topic Index Index Index

TRACK ATTACK! You've heard about the intermediate track, the fast track and multi track - but have you heard about Track Attack? This year's fast-paced action game is faster than a Christmas cracker pull and deadlier than a stray mince pie. Outrun, outgun, outwit and outshine your rivals to rule the rails and rise to leaderboard greatness. Its kill or be killed. Do you have what it takes to sleigh in Track Attack? Christmas Game Faster than a Christmas cracker pull, and deadlier than a stray mince pie. Outrun, outgun, outwit and outshine your rivals to rule the rails and rise to leader-board greatness. Do you have what it takes to sleigh in Track Attack? What is Track Attack? You've heard about the intermediate, fast, multi and even small claims tracks. But none are as much fun as the tracks in Track Attack. Speed around the snowy tracks and shoot your opponents with your deadly mince pies. It's kill or be killed! Track 'em, attack 'em and leave 'em in your steam. Fast tracks, big blasts and no brakes. (Sorry HSE about that last bit.) Oh yeah, and just to reflect litigation risk, the occasional train will randomly fly off the tracks - so be quick! How to Play Controls A - Left D - Right W - Up S - Down Or use the arrow buttons: < - Left > - Right /\ - Up v - Down Space bar - shoot your deadly mince pie! Play here When you're done, why not browse through the fixed costs cases on here - see the Index or use the search function to see if there's a case or two you can use. I am particularly keen to get any judgments on the new Oct 23+ expanded fixed costs, so if you get any - reported or not - please do send them to me! Thank you. Search the site here: Mobile version Not (yet?) suitable to run on mobiles. If you want me to get a mobile version, please vote here: Vote

Cases which discuss where CPR 45.24 can be applied, including the key point established, a short summary of the case and a copy of the full judgment. When CPR 45x.24 (now CPR 45.35) can be applied Brown v Ezeugwa HHJ Simpkiss (Designated Circuit Judge) with DJ Lethem (Regional Costs Judge) as assessor Tunbridge Wells CC, 23rd Jan 2014 (First Tier Appeal - Fixed costs can be awarded on assessment; not limited to when order for costs made/agreed) Davies v Greenway Master Simmons, SCCO, 30th October 2013 (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 (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 DJ Griffith, Birmingham CC, 3rd September 2019 (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 Patel v Fortis Recorder Morgan, Leicester CC, 5th Dec 2011 (The court held that CPR 45.24 applied to restrict the Claimant to no more than Portal costs where they had left the Portal unreasonably.) Go Back to Index Click on the button below to go back to the case law index Index Search the site here:

Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Yavuz & Ors [2017] EWHC 3088 (QB) (6 December 2017). The High Court considered if knowingly providing false statements in a CNF could amount to contempt. The Court noted cPR 32.14 and CPR 22.1 made it contempt to make a false statement certified by a statement of truth, but neither the Protocol nor PD8B mandated compliance, it merely expected compliance, and a requirement to comly was needed to find contempt. Key Point Considerations of Contempt over completion of CNF Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Yavuz & Ors [2017] EWHC 3088 (QB) (6 Dec 2017) The court here was considering whether or not to commit the defendants for contempt following this 'crash for cash' case. The court considered whether knowing providing false statements in a Claim Notification Form ("CNF"), forms which are electronically signed, and usually by the Claimant's solicitor, could amount to contempt. The court side-stepped the issue but noted that CPR 32.14 and 22.1 made it contempt to make a false statement in certain documents verified by a statement of truth. The court also noted that neither the Protocol nor PD8B mandated compliance, it merely 'expected' compliance, which was not the same as saying parties were required to comply, which was needed to find contempt. It thus seems likely that the Rules Committee will review the rules in this area. Watch this space! Click here for a copy of the judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Ampratwum & Zbigniew Samajeden v Esure Birkenhead CC, 5th June 2013 - the court held that a Claimant must have paid for vehicle damages personally before an interim payment can be claimed for them in the MOJ Portal. Key Point A Claimant must have paid for vehicle damages personally before an interim payment can be claimed for them Ampratwum & Zbigniew Samajeden v Esure Birkenhead CC, 5th June 2013 Sarah successfully argued here that a Claimant was not justified in leaving the Portal when a Defendant failed to make a payment for an interim payment within the requisite time. The entitlement to an interim payment for damages, sometimes called additional damages, only arises where a Claimant personally has paid out for that head of loss. If an interim payment for normal damages had not been made in time then a Claimant could leave the Portal. Please note there is no available copy of this judgment. This case makes the point that portal rules must be carefully studied! Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index

Castle v Andrews & Dickens Ltd DJ Doyle, Birkenhead CC, 21st Nov 2019. When is a portal offer not a portal offer? Protocol offers remain open for acceptance until withdrawn, even after Part 7 proceedings have been issued, but not all offers made in the portal are Protocol offers. Key Point Protocol offers remain open for acceptance until withdrawn, even after Part 7 proceedings have been issued, but not all offers made in the portal are Protocol offers Castle v Andrews & Dickens Ltd DJ Doyle, Birkenhead CC, 21st Nov 2019 This claim had started in the MOJ RTA Portal butPart 7 proceedings were issued. Later the Defendant sought to accept the Claimant's Portal offer, but the Claimant argued that their offer was no longer available for acceptance, distinguishing Purcell v McGarry and Akinroyde v EUI. The court found that there was some conflation in previous cases between a Stage 2 portal offer and a Protocol offer, noting that a Protocol offer was a formal term with various cost consequences. Per CPR 36.25 defines a Protocol offer as one set out in the Court Proceedings Pack (Part B) form, and CPR 36.20(8) also converts a defendant's Stage 2 offer to a Protocol offer if a claim leaves the portal before Stage 3 is commenced. Protocol offers were open for acceptance after claims left the portal, whilst Stage 2 offers were not. Otherwise in a case where a claimant wanted to bring in vehicle related damages at the end of Stage 2 per 7.52 of the portal protocol, a defendant could fail to make an offer in Stage 2 causing the claim to leave the portal before the claimant could seek their vehicle related damages in the portal, and then accept the claimant's first Portal offer and not have to pay anything for vehicle related damages at all. The court held this could not be what was intended. Click here for a copy of a note of Judgment Go back to Main Index Main Index Go back to Topic Index Topic Index