Khan v Aviva Insurance Ltd [2026] EWCC 2 (09 January 2026)

Khan v Aviva Insurance Ltd [2026] EWCC 2 (09 January 2026)

The District Judge was entitled to make a costs order outside the fixed costs regime because the application to transfer to Part 7 at Stage 3 was not provided for in the Protocol or fixed costs rules, and thus costs were at large. There was no requirement for a finding of unreasonable conduct under CPR 44.11. The appeal was dismissed as the DDJ had jurisdiction to make the costs order.

Citation
[2026] EWCC 2
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Muhammad Osama Khan; Defendant / Appellant: Aviva Insurance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury, Road Traffic Accident) / Appeal Judgment on Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Fixed Costs Regime, CPR 45 Part III, Practice Direction 49 F, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Insurance Law Costs Orders Fixed Costs Regime CPR 45 Part III Practice Direction 49 F Abuse of Process

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Osama Khan

Claimant / Respondent

Aviva Insurance Limited

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury, Road Traffic Accident) / Appeal Judgment on Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge had jurisdiction to make a costs order outside the fixed costs regime under CPR 45 Part III in a Stage 3 RTA Protocol claim
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's conduct amounted to unreasonable conduct justifying a costs order under CPR 44.11
  3. 3 Whether it would be an abuse of process for the Defendant to argue against costs jurisdiction after seeking costs if successful

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge was entitled to make a costs order outside the fixed costs regime because the application to transfer to Part 7 at Stage 3 was not provided for in the Protocol or fixed costs rules, and thus costs were at large. There was no requirement for a finding of unreasonable conduct under CPR 44.11. The appeal was dismissed as the DDJ had jurisdiction to make the costs order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant's appeal against costs order dismissed
  • District Judge's costs order affirmed