Ford v GKR Construction & Ors [1999] EWCA Civ 3030 (22 October 1999)

Ford v GKR Construction & Ors [1999] EWCA Civ 3030 (22 October 1999)

The judge's exercise of discretion in awarding the claimant her costs, despite not beating the payment into court, was justified due to the defendants' late disclosure of crucial evidence, which prevented the claimant from properly assessing the merits of the payment. The claimant acted reasonably in response to the new evidence, and the defendants' conduct warranted a departure from the normal costs rule.

Citation
[1999] EWCA Civ 3030
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Cheryl Lynne Ford; Defendant/appellant: GKR Construction; Defendant/appellant: Ieuan Rees; Defendant/appellant: Jane Swaffield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Queen's Bench Division (personal Injury) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Payments Into Court, Disclosure of Evidence, Damages Assessment, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr)
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Payments Into Court Disclosure of Evidence Damages Assessment Civil Procedure Rules (cpr)

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheryl Lynne Ford

Claimant/respondent

GKR Construction

Defendant/appellant

Ieuan Rees

Defendant/appellant

Jane Swaffield

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Queen's Bench Division (personal Injury) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in awarding the claimant her costs despite not beating the payment into court
  2. 2 Whether late disclosure of evidence by the defendants justified a departure from the normal costs rule

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's exercise of discretion in awarding the claimant her costs, despite not beating the payment into court, was justified due to the defendants' late disclosure of crucial evidence, which prevented the claimant from properly assessing the merits of the payment. The claimant acted reasonably in response to the new evidence, and the defendants' conduct warranted a departure from the normal costs rule.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant awarded costs throughout
  • Legal Aid assessment of defendants' costs