Higgins v Ministry of Defence

Higgins v Ministry of Defence

It was reasonable for Mr Higgins, given his age, health, urgency, and the recommendation by his consultant, to instruct Field Fisher Waterhouse. The costs allowed were reasonable and proportionate. There was no error in the approach of the lower court, and the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: William Albert Higgins; Defendant/appellant: Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (costs) / Appeal From Senior Costs Office to High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assessment of Costs, Reasonableness of Solicitor's Choice, Hourly Rates, Proportionality
Civil Procedure Costs Assessment of Costs Reasonableness of Solicitor's Choice Hourly Rates Proportionality

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Albert Higgins

Claimant/respondent

Ministry of Defence

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (costs) / Appeal From Senior Costs Office to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was reasonable for the claimant to instruct London solicitors at higher rates rather than local solicitors at lower rates
  2. 2 Whether the costs incurred were reasonable and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

It was reasonable for Mr Higgins, given his age, health, urgency, and the recommendation by his consultant, to instruct Field Fisher Waterhouse. The costs allowed were reasonable and proportionate. There was no error in the approach of the lower court, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs appeal dismissed
  • No adjustment to costs allowed below