SG v Hewitt

SG v Hewitt

It was unjust to apply the normal costs rule under CPR 36.10(5) in this case because the claimant, a child with a severe head injury, could not obtain a reliable prognosis until adolescence, making it impossible to settle earlier or seek court approval. All post-offer costs were incurred solely to enable approval, the claimant acted reasonably, and the defendant chose to keep the offer open. The judge failed to give sufficient weight to these factors, and the normal rule should not have dominated.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: SG; Respondent/defendant: Hewitt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Costs Order Following Approval of Settlement
Outcome
Appeal allowed; costs order set aside.
Legal Topics
Costs, CPR Part 36, Settlement Approval, Child Claimant, Limitation
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs CPR Part 36 Settlement Approval Child Claimant Limitation

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SG

Appellant/claimant

Hewitt

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Costs Order Following Approval of Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was unjust to apply the normal costs rule under CPR 36.10(5) after late acceptance of a Part 36 offer in a child personal injury claim
  2. 2 Whether the need to await a reliable prognosis before settlement justified departure from the normal costs rule

Ratio Decidendi

It was unjust to apply the normal costs rule under CPR 36.10(5) in this case because the claimant, a child with a severe head injury, could not obtain a reliable prognosis until adolescence, making it impossible to settle earlier or seek court approval. All post-offer costs were incurred solely to enable approval, the claimant acted reasonably, and the defendant chose to keep the offer open. The judge failed to give sufficient weight to these factors, and the normal rule should not have dominated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; costs order set aside.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant's costs throughout, including from 23 April 2009.