Matthews (a patient) v Metal Improvements Co Inc [2007] EWCA Civ 215 (14 March 2007)

Matthews (a patient) v Metal Improvements Co Inc [2007] EWCA Civ 215 (14 March 2007)

The Deputy District Judge erred in law by equating the reasonableness of the Claimant's rejection of the Part 36 payment with the test of 'unjustness' required by CPR Part 36.20. No facts were identified that rendered it unjust to make the usual order. Changes in circumstances or late-emerging evidence are contingencies inherent in litigation and do not normally justify depriving the defendant of costs protection. The correct order is that the Defendant pays the Claimant's costs up to 29 August 2005 and the costs of the approval hearing, and the Claimant pays the Defendant's costs incurred after 29 August 2005, except for the approval hearing costs.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 215
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Dan Matthews (a patient) who sues by his Receiver and Litigation Friend Andrew James Pace; Defendant / Appellant: Metal Improvements Co Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Wrexham County Court, Costs Order Following Settlement Approval
Outcome
Appeal allowed; costs order varied
Legal Topics
Costs, Part 36 Offers, Settlement Approval, Contributory Negligence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Part 36 Offers Settlement Approval Contributory Negligence

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

Parties

Dan Matthews (a patient) who sues by his Receiver and Litigation Friend Andrew James Pace

Claimant / Respondent

Metal Improvements Co Inc.

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Wrexham County Court, Costs Order Following Settlement Approval

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the usual costs order under CPR Part 36.20 should be departed from when a claimant accepts a Part 36 payment late due to new medical evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy District Judge applied the correct legal test in exercising discretion on costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy District Judge erred in law by equating the reasonableness of the Claimant's rejection of the Part 36 payment with the test of 'unjustness' required by CPR Part 36.20. No facts were identified that rendered it unjust to make the usual order. Changes in circumstances or late-emerging evidence are contingencies inherent in litigation and do not normally justify depriving the defendant of costs protection. The correct order is that the Defendant pays the Claimant's costs up to 29 August 2005 and the costs of the approval hearing, and the Claimant pays the Defendant's costs incurred after 29 August 2005, except for the approval hearing costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; costs order varied

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimant's costs of the claim until 29 August 2005 and costs of the approval hearing
  • Claimant to pay Defendant's costs incurred after 29 August 2005, except for approval hearing costs