A B & Ors v Department of Trade & Industry s/a British Coal Corporation

A B & Ors v Department of Trade & Industry s/a British Coal Corporation

The judge erred in principle by refusing the DTI's application for an adjournment to allow further evidence on the actual work and costs incurred in FTO cases, given that such evidence was relevant to the fair assessment of costs. Both live and deceased claims should be remitted for reconsideration on the basis of appropriate evidence, with the CHA figures as a starting point but not determinative. The judge also erred by taking into account the potential conflict of interest for solicitors as a relevant factor in fixing costs.

Parties
Claimants/respondents: A B and Others; Defendant/appellant: Department of Trade & Industry s/a British Coal Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the judge for reconsideration of costs in both live and deceased claims.
Legal Topics
Assessment of Costs, Group Litigation, Solicitors' Remuneration, Claims Handling Agreements
Civil Procedure Costs Assessment of Costs Group Litigation Solicitors' Remuneration Claims Handling Agreements

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A B and Others

Claimants/respondents

Department of Trade & Industry s/a British Coal Corporation

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate basis for assessing solicitors' costs in fast track offer (FTO) cases under the British Coal Corporation Respiratory Disease Litigation (BCRDL)?
  2. 2 Was the judge correct to refuse an adjournment to allow further evidence on costs in deceased claims?
  3. 3 Should the figures in the Claims Handling Agreement (CHA) be determinative or merely a starting point for costs assessment?

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in principle by refusing the DTI's application for an adjournment to allow further evidence on the actual work and costs incurred in FTO cases, given that such evidence was relevant to the fair assessment of costs. Both live and deceased claims should be remitted for reconsideration on the basis of appropriate evidence, with the CHA figures as a starting point but not determinative. The judge also erred by taking into account the potential conflict of interest for solicitors as a relevant factor in fixing costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the judge for reconsideration of costs in both live and deceased claims.

Orders

  • Appeals in both live and deceased claims allowed.
  • Matters remitted to the judge for reconsideration on the basis of further evidence.