Booth v Britannia Hotels Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 579 (26 March 2002)

Booth v Britannia Hotels Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 579 (26 March 2002)

The district judge erred by adopting a percentage approach to costs before properly scrutinising and excluding unreasonable items from the bill of costs. The correct approach is to allow only those costs reasonably incurred in relation to the sum recovered, with any percentage or lump-sum adjustment applied only after this scrutiny. The claimant, having pursued an unsustainable claim, cannot recover costs expended in that unreasonable pursuit, even if the defendant disclosed evidence late.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 579
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Kathryn Booth; Appellant/defendant: Britannia Hotels Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Assessment of Costs, Reasonableness of Costs, Personal Injury Claims, Disclosure of Evidence, Standard Basis Costs
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Assessment of Costs Reasonableness of Costs Personal Injury Claims Disclosure of Evidence Standard Basis Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathryn Booth

Respondent/claimant

Britannia Hotels Ltd

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What costs are reasonably recoverable by a claimant who settles a personal injury claim for a modest sum after pursuing a much larger claim later shown to be unsustainable?
  2. 2 Whether a proportionate or itemised approach should be adopted in assessing costs in such circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether late disclosure of evidence by the defendant affects the claimant's entitlement to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The district judge erred by adopting a percentage approach to costs before properly scrutinising and excluding unreasonable items from the bill of costs. The correct approach is to allow only those costs reasonably incurred in relation to the sum recovered, with any percentage or lump-sum adjustment applied only after this scrutiny. The claimant, having pursued an unsustainable claim, cannot recover costs expended in that unreasonable pursuit, even if the defendant disclosed evidence late.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Case remitted to District Judge Buckley for reassessment of claimant's costs in accordance with the Court of Appeal's judgment.
  • Costs of the appeal and below to appellants, set off against costs respondent recovers on quantum; if insufficient, set off deferred until after conclusion of taxation for the whole hearing.