Cashman v Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 1312 (QB) (11 May 2015)
The Master erred in refusing the additional amount under CPR 36.14(3)(d) based solely on the reduction in the bill of costs; the proper approach is to consider the terms of the Part 36 offer and all relevant circumstances under CPR 36.14(4); as none rendered it unjust, the additional amount must be awarded.
- Citation
- [2015] EWHC 1312 (QB)
- Parties
- Appellant / Claimant: Michael Richard Cashman; Respondent / Defendant: Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 11 May 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Costs Order in Clinical Negligence Proceedings / Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- CPR 36.14(3)(d) Additional Amount, Detailed Assessment of Costs, Part 36 Offers, Clinical Negligence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michael Richard Cashman
Appellant / Claimant
Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust
Respondent / Defendant
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Costs Order in Clinical Negligence Proceedings / Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether it was unjust to refuse an additional amount under CPR 36.14(3)(d) in detailed assessment proceedings
- 2 Proper application of CPR 36.14(3)(d) to costs proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
The Master erred in refusing the additional amount under CPR 36.14(3)(d) based solely on the reduction in the bill of costs; the proper approach is to consider the terms of the Part 36 offer and all relevant circumstances under CPR 36.14(4); as none rendered it unjust, the additional amount must be awarded.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Claimant entitled to additional award under CPR 36.14(3)(d) calculated as 10% of assessed costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment