Higgins v Ministry of Defence [2010] EWHC 654 (QB) (30 March 2010)

Higgins v Ministry of Defence [2010] EWHC 654 (QB) (30 March 2010)

It was reasonable for Mr Higgins to instruct Field Fisher Waterhouse given his age, the urgency of the case, the recommendation by a consultant, and the lack of evidence that local solicitors had the necessary expertise or accessibility. The decision of the Costs Officer and Master Campbell involved no error of principle, and the appeal court should not interfere with their exercise of judgment.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 654
Parties
Claimant Respondent: William Albert Higgins; Defendant Appellant: Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal / Appeal From Senior Costs Office to High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assessment of Costs, Reasonableness of Solicitor's Choice, Hourly Rates, Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa)
Civil Procedure Costs Assessment of Costs Reasonableness of Solicitor's Choice Hourly Rates Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa)

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Albert Higgins

Claimant Respondent

Ministry of Defence

Defendant Appellant

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal / Appeal From Senior Costs Office to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was reasonable for the claimant to instruct a Central London firm of solicitors at higher hourly 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 to instruct Field Fisher Waterhouse given his age, the urgency of the case, the recommendation by a consultant, and the lack of evidence that local solicitors had the necessary expertise or accessibility. The decision of the Costs Officer and Master Campbell involved no error of principle, and the appeal court should not interfere with their exercise of judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by the Ministry of Defence is dismissed.