Matthews (a patient) v Metal Improvements Co Inc

Matthews (a patient) v Metal Improvements Co Inc

The Deputy District Judge erred by conflating the reasonableness of the claimant’s rejection of the Part 36 payment with the test of whether it was unjust to make the usual costs order. There was no identified fact rendering it unjust to apply the normal rule. The correct order is that the Defendant pays the Claimant’s costs up to the expiry of the 21-day period and the costs of the approval hearing, but the Claimant pays the Defendant’s costs thereafter, except for the approval hearing costs.

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 County Court Decision on Costs Following Settlement Approval
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Costs order of Deputy District Judge set aside and substituted.
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 3 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 County Court Decision on Costs Following Settlement Approval

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was unjust to make the usual costs order under CPR Part 36.20 when the claimant accepted a payment into court out of time due to new medical evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy District Judge applied the correct test in exercising discretion on costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy District Judge erred by conflating the reasonableness of the claimant’s rejection of the Part 36 payment with the test of whether it was unjust to make the usual costs order. There was no identified fact rendering it unjust to apply the normal rule. The correct order is that the Defendant pays the Claimant’s costs up to the expiry of the 21-day period and the costs of the approval hearing, but the Claimant pays the Defendant’s costs thereafter, except for the approval hearing costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Costs order of Deputy District Judge set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimant’s costs up to 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.