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, based on uncontested facts and absence of evidence to the contrary, that the claim would have exited the Protocol in any event due to increase in value, and thus costs incurred would have been essentially the same; speculation about hypothetical settlement within the Protocol was not justified. The exercise of discretion under CPR 44.11 was proper and supported by evidence, so costs should not be limited to fixed costs.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 288 (QB)
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
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Protocol Compliance, Fixed Costs Regime, Misconduct in Litigation
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Assessment Protocol Compliance Fixed Costs Regime Misconduct in Litigation

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 15 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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's costs should be restricted to fixed costs under CPR 45.18 due to unreasonable conduct in exiting the Protocol
  2. 2 Whether the Master exercised discretion correctly under CPR 44.11

Ratio Decidendi

The Master was entitled to find, based on uncontested facts and absence of evidence to the contrary, that the claim would have exited the Protocol in any event due to increase in value, and thus costs incurred would have been essentially the same; speculation about hypothetical settlement within the Protocol was not justified. The exercise of discretion under CPR 44.11 was proper and supported by evidence, so costs should not be limited to fixed costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant entitled to reasonable and proportionate costs to be justified at detailed assessment on the standard basis