Havenga v Gateshead NHS Foundation Trust [2014] EWHC B25 (QB) (26 November 2014)

Havenga v Gateshead NHS Foundation Trust [2014] EWHC B25 (QB) (26 November 2014)

The District Judge's reductions to the claimant's costs budget were within the wide ambit of his discretion and the resulting budget was reasonable and proportionate; the appellate court should not interfere merely because it might have been more generous.

Citation
[2014] EWHC B25
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Oliver Havenga (A Child Suing by his Litigation Friend and Mother Julie Havenga); Defendant/respondent: Gateshead NHS Foundation Trust; Defendant/respondent: South Tyneside Hospitals NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal (costs Management Order) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Management, Case Management Discretion, Proportionality of Costs, Expert Evidence, Solicitor and Counsel Fees
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Costs Management Case Management Discretion Proportionality of Costs Expert Evidence Solicitor and Counsel Fees

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oliver Havenga (A Child Suing by his Litigation Friend and Mother Julie Havenga)

Claimant/appellant

Gateshead NHS Foundation Trust

Defendant/respondent

South Tyneside Hospitals NHS Trust

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (costs Management Order) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge erred in reducing the claimant's costs budget in four specific areas: solicitors' time for statement of case, solicitors' costs for expert reports, experts' fees, and solicitors' time for trial preparation and trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge's reductions to the claimant's costs budget were within the wide ambit of his discretion and the resulting budget was reasonable and proportionate; the appellate court should not interfere merely because it might have been more generous.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs budget as set by the District Judge stands
  • Counsel to agree an order regarding the costs of the appeal