Toth v Jarman [2006] EWCA Civ 1625 (21 November 2006)

Toth v Jarman [2006] EWCA Civ 1625 (21 November 2006)

The trial judge's approach to apportioning costs by reference to time spent on issues was correct; the discount applied was a broadly accurate assessment. Article 2 ECHR was not engaged. The respondent is entitled to costs of the appeal, subject to the appellant's legal aid status. Applications for adjournment and for leave to appeal to the House of Lords are refused.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1625
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Arpad Toth; Defendant/respondent: Dr David Jarman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Post Judgment (costs and Ancillary Applications)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as to costs issues; applications for adjournment and leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Legal Aid, Assessment of Costs, Human Rights (article 2), Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Costs Legal Aid Assessment of Costs Human Rights (article 2) Appeal Procedure

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arpad Toth

Claimant/appellant

Dr David Jarman

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Post Judgment (costs and Ancillary Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs discount applied by the trial judge was appropriate
  2. 2 Whether Article 2 ECHR was engaged in the context of the claim
  3. 3 Entitlement to costs on appeal and the effect of legal aid status

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's approach to apportioning costs by reference to time spent on issues was correct; the discount applied was a broadly accurate assessment. Article 2 ECHR was not engaged. The respondent is entitled to costs of the appeal, subject to the appellant's legal aid status. Applications for adjournment and for leave to appeal to the House of Lords are refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as to costs issues; applications for adjournment and leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis, except where covered by public funds.
  • Full costs of the appeal to be determined by a costs judge.