Peter Jenkins v Thurrock Council
[2024] EWHC 2248 (KB)
Daniel Luke Woolley v Ministry of Justice
16 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 304 (KB)
High Court
A prisoner sued the prison for an assault. The judge decided how much the prisoner could spend on lawyers, but ignored how much the prison was spending. The higher court said this was unfair and sent the case back to a different judge to decide again.
Key Facts
- •Daniel Luke Woolley (appellant/claimant) appealed a Central London County Court decision approving his costs budget at £26,225 for a personal injury claim against the Ministry of Justice (respondent/defendant).
- •The claim arose from an assault while Woolley was a remand prisoner at HMP Birmingham.
- •Woolley's initial costs budget was £121,886, while the defendant's agreed budget was £58,984.
- •The appeal concerned the judge's refusal to consider the defendant's budget when assessing proportionality and the judge's failure to ensure the parties were on an equal footing.
- •The trial was scheduled for two days.
Legal Principles
When making any case management decision, the court will have regard to any available budgets of the parties and will take into account the costs involved in each procedural step.
CPR rule 3.17
Costs management decisions are a feature of case management and should be made with full consideration of cost implications.
White Book (2023) volume 1, at 3.17.1
The court is not a slave to comparison between parties' budgets; there can be good reasons for differences.
Chief Master Marsh in Various Claimants v. Scott Fowler Solicitors (a firm) [2018] EWHC 1891 (Ch)
The threshold for interfering with a case or costs management decision on appeal is high; the decision must be wrong or unjust due to a serious procedural or other irregularity.
CPR rule 52.21(3); Gray v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] Costs LR 1105
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The judge wrongly disregarded the defendant's costs budget when assessing the claimant's budget, failing to consider a relevant factor and creating a serious procedural irregularity. The judge's conduct, including discourteous remarks to the claimant's counsel, further contributed to the unfairness.
The claimant's costs budget was remitted to the county court for reconsideration by a different judge.
The decision was deemed unjust due to the serious procedural irregularity. While the approved budget might not have been inherently wrong, the process leading to it was flawed. The court found that the outcome might have differed had the judge considered the defendant's budget.
Similar Cases
Joanna Lemos & Ors v Church Bay Trust Company Limited & Ors
[2023] EWHC 157 (Ch)
Miah Ibar Lone v Michael Andreas Petrou
[2024] EWHC 153 (KB)
Gattaz Property Limited & Anor. v Versant Developments & Homes Ltd & Ors
[2023] EWHC 110 (Comm)
Philip John Mainwaring v Susan Claire Bailey (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 2614 (Fam)