Hamed v Mills & Anor

Hamed v Mills & Anor

Costs are to be apportioned between the Defendants in the proportions of liability found (Dr Mills 30%, Football Club 70%). Indemnity costs apply against Dr Mills from the date of the unaccepted Part 36 offer. No further costs orders are made regarding abandoned claims or the Football Club's internal arrangements. The Football Club's failure to accept settlement offers does not justify an adverse costs order in the circumstances. Dr Mills' liability for costs ends at 11am on 5 February 2015, when he conceded liability.

Parties
Claimant: Radwan Hamed (a Protected Party through his Father and Litigation Friend Raymon Hamed); First Defendant: Dr Peter George Mills; Second Defendant: Tottenham Hotspur Football Club and Athletic Limited; First Third Party: Dr Charlotte Myong Cowie; Second Third Party: Dr Mark John Curtin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence / Costs Judgment Following Liability Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant against both Defendants for damages to be assessed; costs apportioned as between Defendants; specific costs orders as detailed; permission to appeal apportionment refused.
Legal Topics
Apportionment of Liability, Costs Orders, Part 36 Offers, Vicarious Liability
Tort Law Medical Negligence Civil Procedure Apportionment of Liability Costs Orders Part 36 Offers Vicarious Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Radwan Hamed (a Protected Party through his Father and Litigation Friend Raymon Hamed)

Claimant

Dr Peter George Mills

First Defendant

Tottenham Hotspur Football Club and Athletic Limited

Second Defendant

Dr Charlotte Myong Cowie

First Third Party

Dr Mark John Curtin

Second Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Medical Negligence / Costs Judgment Following Liability Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should costs be apportioned between Defendants following a finding of liability?
  2. 2 Should indemnity costs apply due to a Part 36 offer?
  3. 3 Are there grounds for further costs orders regarding abandoned claims?

Ratio Decidendi

Costs are to be apportioned between the Defendants in the proportions of liability found (Dr Mills 30%, Football Club 70%). Indemnity costs apply against Dr Mills from the date of the unaccepted Part 36 offer. No further costs orders are made regarding abandoned claims or the Football Club's internal arrangements. The Football Club's failure to accept settlement offers does not justify an adverse costs order in the circumstances. Dr Mills' liability for costs ends at 11am on 5 February 2015, when he conceded liability.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant against both Defendants for damages to be assessed; costs apportioned as between Defendants; specific costs orders as detailed; permission to appeal apportionment refused.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Claimant against both Defendants for damages to be assessed.
  • Damages, interest, and costs apportioned 30% to Dr Mills and 70% to the Football Club as between themselves.