Ryan v Hackett [2020] EWHC 288 (QB) (13 February 2020)

Ryan v Hackett [2020] EWHC 288 (QB) (13 February 2020)

The Master was entitled to find, on the uncontested facts and without speculation, that the claim would have exited the Protocol in any event due to the increase in value, and thus it was appropriate to allow reasonable and proportionate costs rather than limit to fixed costs. The exercise of discretion under CPR 44.11 was not flawed and there was no basis for appellate interference.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 288
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mr Alan Ryan; Defendant/appellant: Mr Karl Hackett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Senior Court Costs Office (master Rowley)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Fixed Costs Regime, CPR 44.11 Misconduct, Exiting Pre Action Protocol, Judicial Discretion in Costs
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Assessment Fixed Costs Regime CPR 44.11 Misconduct Exiting Pre Action Protocol Judicial Discretion in Costs

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Alan Ryan

Claimant/respondent

Mr Karl Hackett

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Senior Court Costs Office (master Rowley)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's costs should be limited to fixed costs under CPR 45.18 due to unreasonable conduct in exiting the Protocol
  2. 2 Whether the Master erred in exercising discretion under CPR 44.11 by not limiting costs to fixed costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Master was entitled to find, on the uncontested facts and without speculation, that the claim would have exited the Protocol in any event due to the increase in value, and thus it was appropriate to allow reasonable and proportionate costs rather than limit to fixed costs. The exercise of discretion under CPR 44.11 was not flawed and there was no basis for appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant entitled to reasonable and proportionate costs to be assessed on the standard basis.