Nicholas Worcester v Dr Philip Hopley
[2024] EWHC 2181 (KB)
Reid v Wye Valley NHS Trust & Anor
18 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 2843 (KB)
High Court
The court reduced the winning side's legal fees by 25% because their initial request for money was too high. It's like if you asked for £100 for your lemonade stand but only deserved £75; the court would only give you the £75.
Key Facts
- •Costs management hearing following case management by Master Stevens.
- •Claimant's clinical negligence claim valued at over £1 million.
- •Defendant argued that Claimant did not make reasonable endeavours to negotiate costs.
- •Claimant's budget contained high hourly rates and seemingly unrealistic cost claims.
- •Master Brown substantially reduced the Claimant's budget.
- •The Judge considered the 'seven pillars of wisdom' and CPR 44.2 when deciding on costs.
Legal Principles
Costs generally follow the event; the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party.
CPR 44.2
Costs in the case is the usual order for costs management hearings.
Judge's statement
Court has discretion as to costs, considering conduct of parties, whether a party succeeded in part, and any admissible offers.
CPR 44.2
CPR intends higher discipline in conduct of litigation; costs should incentivize this discipline.
AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 1507
Court should consider whether costs budgets are realistic and not 'low-ball' tactics.
Findcharm Ltd v Churchill Group Ltd [2017] EWHC 1108 (TCC)
Outcomes
Costs in the case, subject to a 25% reduction for the Claimant.
Claimant's budget contained unrealistic cost claims, necessitating a reduction to reflect this; however, a complete denial of costs would discourage realistic offers from defendants.