Alli v Luton & Dunstable NHS Trust

The change in the claimant's evidence at trial did not materially affect the core issue of liability or mislead the respondents in a way that justified departing from the normal rule as to costs. The respondents simply misjudged the strength of their own case. The normal consequences of the claimant's successful Part 36 offer should apply.

Parties: Claimant/appellant: Jasmin Alli; Defendants/respondents: Luton & Dunstable NHS Trust
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 27 April 2005
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court on Costs Order
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Costs, Workplace Safety, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Statutory Duty

Civil Procedure Personal Injury Employment Law Costs Workplace Safety Negligence Contributory Negligence Statutory Duty

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

Parties

Jasmin Alli

Claimant/appellant

Luton & Dunstable NHS Trust

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court on Costs Order

Legal Issues

1 Whether the trial judge erred in making no order as to costs after finding for the claimant on liability
2 Whether a change in the claimant's case justified a departure from the normal rule as to costs under CPR 44.3
3 Whether the respondents were misled by the claimant's presentation of her case

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

Respondent to pay appellant's costs of the appeal on the standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed, with liberty to apply on the issue of entitlement to indemnity costs if so advised.
Respondent to pay appellant's costs below on the indemnity basis with enhanced interest from 03/09/2004.