Painting v University of Oxford [2005] EWCA Civ 161 (03 February 2005)

Painting v University of Oxford [2005] EWCA Civ 161 (03 February 2005)

The Recorder failed to give appropriate weight to the claimant's deliberate exaggeration, the University's success on the central issue, and the lack of negotiation by the claimant. The costs order did not reflect the realities of the litigation, and the University was the effective winner. The order was set aside and replaced with an order that the University pay the claimant's costs up to 25 February 2004, and the claimant pay the University's costs thereafter.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 161
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Yvonne Hazel Painting; Defendant/appellant: University of Oxford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Assessment of Damages and Costs / Appeal From Walsall County Court on Costs Order After Quantum Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; original costs order set aside.
Legal Topics
Costs, Exaggeration of Claim, Part 36 Offers, Judicial Discretion, Conduct of Parties
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Exaggeration of Claim Part 36 Offers Judicial Discretion Conduct of Parties

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yvonne Hazel Painting

Claimant/respondent

University of Oxford

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Assessment of Damages and Costs / Appeal From Walsall County Court on Costs Order After Quantum Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in awarding all costs to the claimant despite findings of exaggeration and the defendant's partial success
  2. 2 Proper application of CPR Part 44.3 and Part 36 in costs orders where claimant exaggerates claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder failed to give appropriate weight to the claimant's deliberate exaggeration, the University's success on the central issue, and the lack of negotiation by the claimant. The costs order did not reflect the realities of the litigation, and the University was the effective winner. The order was set aside and replaced with an order that the University pay the claimant's costs up to 25 February 2004, and the claimant pay the University's costs thereafter.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; original costs order set aside.

Orders

  • University to pay Mrs Painting's costs up to 25 February 2004.
  • Mrs Painting to pay the University's costs thereafter.