Painting v University of Oxford

Painting v University of Oxford

The Recorder failed to give appropriate weight to the claimant's deliberate exaggeration, the lack of negotiation, and the fact that the University was the effective winner on the central issue. The costs order was outside the permissible ambit of discretion and must be set aside.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Yvonne Hazel Painting; Defendant/appellant: University of Oxford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court on Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs, Exaggeration of Claim, Part 36 Payment, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Exaggeration of Claim Part 36 Payment 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 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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court on Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in awarding all costs to the claimant despite findings of exaggeration and the conduct of the parties
  2. 2 Whether the court should interfere with the trial judge's discretion on costs in light of CPR 44.3 and Part 36 payment

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder failed to give appropriate weight to the claimant's deliberate exaggeration, the lack of negotiation, and the fact that the University was the effective winner on the central issue. The costs order was outside the permissible ambit of discretion and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • University to pay claimant's costs up to 25 February 2004
  • Claimant to pay University's costs thereafter