04.06.08: Carver v BAA Plc

Costs penalty imposed for conduct of litigation

 

(Court of Appeal decision - published June 4, 2008. Before Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Rix and Lord Justice Keene, Judgment April 22, 2008)

 

Where a Claimant had obtained Judgment as to liability and had been awarded damages exceeding an earlier payment-in, the Judge was none the less empowered to award costs in favour of the losing party or to make no order for costs.

 

The Court of Appeal so stated when dismissing the appeal as to costs of the Claimant, Lisa Carver, from Judge Knight, QC, who in Central London County Court, on June 4, 2007, found for the Claimant in personal injury proceedings against the Defendant, BAA plc, and awarded a sum exceeding a payment-in by £51 but ordered Ms Carver to pay BAA's costs after expiry of time to accept the payment-in, and made no costs order as to an earlier period covered by an offer to settle without admission of liability.

 

Mr John Coughlan for Ms Carver; Mr John Snowden for BAA.

 

LORD JUSTICE WARD said that in non-money claimed all the circumstances had to be taken into account, and the same should apply in money claims.

 

In particular, the rubric "more advantageous" in rule 14(1)(a) of Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules permitted a more wide-ranging review of all the facts and circumstances of a case in deciding whether the Judgement which was the fruit of the litigation was worth the fight.

 

Here, the extra £51 gained was more than offset by the irrecoverable costs incurred by the Claimant in continuing to contest the case for as long as she did; it was appropriate to make no order for costs for the prior period in light of the manner in which the litigation had been conducted.

 

Lord Justice Rix and Lord Justice Keene agreed.