Hutchings v The British Transport Police Authority [2006] EWHC 90064 (Costs) (11 October 2006)

Hutchings v The British Transport Police Authority [2006] EWHC 90064 (Costs) (11 October 2006)

The paying party is entitled, to a limited extent, to further information about the claimant's insurance arrangements, specifically whether the claimant had insurance, with whom, and whether there was legal expenses insurance. Broader or more intrusive requests are disproportionate and not reasonably necessary for the assessment of costs.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 90064 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: John Michael Hutchings; Defendant/appellant: The British Transport Police Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal / Appeal From Deputy District Judge to Senior Costs Judge
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs Assessment, Part 18 Requests, Legal Expenses Insurance, Satellite Litigation
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Costs Assessment Part 18 Requests Legal Expenses Insurance Satellite Litigation

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Michael Hutchings

Claimant/respondent

The British Transport Police Authority

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal / Appeal From Deputy District Judge to Senior Costs Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the paying party is entitled to further information about the receiving party's insurance arrangements in costs proceedings under a CFA.
  2. 2 Whether the Part 18 request for information was reasonable and proportionate.

Ratio Decidendi

The paying party is entitled, to a limited extent, to further information about the claimant's insurance arrangements, specifically whether the claimant had insurance, with whom, and whether there was legal expenses insurance. Broader or more intrusive requests are disproportionate and not reasonably necessary for the assessment of costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Claimant to answer the following questions: (i) does the Claimant have insurance; (ii) with whom; (iii) does the Claimant have any legal expenses insurance.
  • All other requests for further information refused.