Burgess v British Steel Plc & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 3019 (19 January 2000)

Burgess v British Steel Plc & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 3019 (19 January 2000)

The judge erred in departing from the general rule that the defendants were entitled to their costs after the payment in, as the mere making of an allegation of malingering, not pursued at trial, did not constitute sufficient reason to deprive the defendants of their costs. The claimant's primary purpose in proceeding was to recover more than the payment in, not to vindicate his character.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 3019
Parties
Claimant: Brian Burgess; 1st Defendant: British Steel PLC; 2nd Defendant: Wayne Anthony May
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division on Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs, Payment Into Court, Personal Injury Damages, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Payment Into Court Personal Injury Damages Judicial Discretion

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Burgess

Claimant

British Steel PLC

1st Defendant

Wayne Anthony May

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division on Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in departing from the general rule on costs after a payment into court when the claimant failed to beat the payment in
  2. 2 Whether the allegation of malingering justified depriving the defendants of their costs after the payment in

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in departing from the general rule that the defendants were entitled to their costs after the payment in, as the mere making of an allegation of malingering, not pursued at trial, did not constitute sufficient reason to deprive the defendants of their costs. The claimant's primary purpose in proceeding was to recover more than the payment in, not to vindicate his character.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Defendants awarded costs as from 21 days after payment in, except for costs incurred in relation to Dr Jawad or the malingering issue.