Finster v Arriva London & Anor [2007] EWHC 90070 (Costs) (07 February 2007)

Finster v Arriva London & Anor [2007] EWHC 90070 (Costs) (07 February 2007)

The court held that the claimant was entitled to standard basis costs as per the settlement, but that the bill was globally disproportionate given the realistic value of the claim, which was far less than pleaded. The evidence did not justify a £1.4m claim, and a reasonable litigant would not have expected to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 90070 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Paul Sheridan Finster; First Defendant: Arriva London; Second Defendant: Steven Booth
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment Following Settlement of Personal Injury Claim / Detailed Assessment of Costs Before the Supreme Court Costs Office
Outcome
Claimant entitled to standard basis costs, but bill to be reduced for disproportionality and lack of reasonable evidential basis for the pleaded value.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Proportionality, Exaggeration of Claims, Standard Basis Costs, Issue Based Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Law Costs Assessment Proportionality Exaggeration of Claims Standard Basis Costs Issue Based Costs Orders

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Sheridan Finster

Claimant

Arriva London

First Defendant

Steven Booth

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment Following Settlement of Personal Injury Claim / Detailed Assessment of Costs Before the Supreme Court Costs Office

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's costs are disproportionate to the reasonable value of the claim
  2. 2 Whether exaggeration of the claim justifies reduction of costs
  3. 3 Whether costs relating to special damages should be disallowed as abandoned issues

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claimant was entitled to standard basis costs as per the settlement, but that the bill was globally disproportionate given the realistic value of the claim, which was far less than pleaded. The evidence did not justify a £1.4m claim, and a reasonable litigant would not have expected to recover more than a modest sum. The court was not precluded from considering proportionality and exaggeration on assessment, and costs would be reduced accordingly, with only those costs recoverable as would have been incurred had the litigation been conducted proportionately.

Court Disposition

Claimant entitled to standard basis costs, but bill to be reduced for disproportionality and lack of reasonable evidential basis for the pleaded value.

Orders

  • Costs to be assessed on the standard basis, subject to reductions for disproportionality and unnecessary expenditure.
  • Costs relating to special damages not disallowed as abandoned, but only recoverable to the extent proportionate and necessary.