Mazahar Hussain v EUI Ltd
[2024] EWCC 16
Muhammad Tanveer Amjad v UK Insurance Limited
10 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2832 (KB)
High Court
A taxi driver had an accident and sued for injuries and car hire costs. The judge made him pay more than he won because of a complicated rule about who pays for lawsuits. The appeal court said the judge got the rule wrong and the taxi driver doesn't have to pay extra.
Key Facts
- •Claimant, a taxi driver, was involved in a road traffic accident (RTA).
- •He sued for personal injuries, vehicle repair costs, storage charges, and credit hire charges (£51,600).
- •He claimed impecuniosity to justify the high credit hire charges.
- •The Judge debarred the Claimant from relying on impecuniosity due to a breach of an unless order for financial disclosure.
- •The Judge awarded damages of approximately £10,000, excluding the credit hire charges.
- •The Defendant made a Part 36 offer of £15,700, which the Claimant rejected.
- •The Judge ordered the Claimant to pay the Defendant's costs from the date the Part 36 offer expired, exceeding the QOCS cap by approximately £5,000.
Legal Principles
Exceptions to QOCS protection from adverse costs orders for claimants in personal injury claims mixed with non-personal injury claims.
CPR r.44.16(2)(a) and (b)
Interpretation of 'mixed claims' under CPR r.44.16(2)(b).
Brown v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2019] EWCA Civ. 1724
The 'who benefits' test for determining the applicability of CPR r.44.16(2)(a) and (b).
Case law analysis within the judgment
Factors to consider when exercising the discretion to lift the QOCS cap under CPR r.44.16(2)(b).
Case law analysis within the judgment, including Brown v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Non-party costs orders (NPCOs) and the relevant tests.
Mee v Jones [2017] EWHC 1434, and other case law cited
Standard of review for appeals against findings of fact.
Henderson v Foxworth [2014] UKSC 41, Grizzly Business v Stena Drilling [2017] EWCA Civ. 94, Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings [2023] EWCA Civ. 191, Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ. 464
Test for appeals against case management decisions.
Royal & Sun v T & N [2002] EWCA Civ. 1964, Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ. 1537, Clearway Drainage Systems Ltd v Miles Smith Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ. 1258
Recoverability of credit hire charges.
Giles v Thompson [1994] 1 AC 142, Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, Lagden v O’Connor [2003] UKHL 64, Farrell v Birmingham [2011] RTR 14, Pattni v First Leicester Buses & Darren Bent v Highways [2011] EWCA Civ. 1384
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Judge erred in applying both CPR r.44.16(2)(a) and (b); only (a) applied. The Judge failed to consider a non-party costs order against the CHC and incorrectly characterized the claim as non-PI 'in the round'. The Judge also failed to consider relevant factors when exercising his discretion to lift the QOCS cap.