Higgs v Camden & Islington Health Authority [2003] EWHC 15 (QB) (16 January 2003)

Higgs v Camden & Islington Health Authority [2003] EWHC 15 (QB) (16 January 2003)

The costs judge was entitled, on the evidence and in the exercise of his discretion, to allow the hourly rates claimed for the partner and leading counsel, and to find that delegation was appropriate in the circumstances. The appeal court should not interfere unless the decision was wrong, which was not established here.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 15 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Leo Roland Higgs (a child suing by his mother and Litigation Friend, Marcia Higgs); Defendant/appellant: Camden & Islington Health Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Costs Assessment in Clinical Negligence Action / Judgment on Appeal From Costs Judge Rogers
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assessment of Costs, Solicitor's Hourly Rates, Delegation of Work, Counsel's Fees, Reasonableness and Proportionality of Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Clinical Negligence Assessment of Costs Solicitor's Hourly Rates Delegation of Work Counsel's Fees Reasonableness and Proportionality of 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leo Roland Higgs (a child suing by his mother and Litigation Friend, Marcia Higgs)

Claimant/respondent

Camden & Islington Health Authority

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Costs Assessment in Clinical Negligence Action / Judgment on Appeal From Costs Judge Rogers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hourly rate of £300 for the claimant's solicitor was reasonable
  2. 2 Whether there was proper delegation by the partner
  3. 3 Whether the hourly rate of £350 for leading counsel was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The costs judge was entitled, on the evidence and in the exercise of his discretion, to allow the hourly rates claimed for the partner and leading counsel, and to find that delegation was appropriate in the circumstances. The appeal court should not interfere unless the decision was wrong, which was not established here.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.