Toth v Jarman

The appropriate discount on costs was a matter for the trial judge's discretion, based on time spent on each issue, and the selected discount was reasonable. The respondent is entitled to costs of the appeal, with payment by the appellant up to the date legal aid was granted, and thereafter as provided by statute and regulations. No breach of Article 2 rights occurred, and the application for adjournment was refused as there was no basis to reopen the judgment.

Parties: Claimant/appellant: Arpad Toth; Defendant/respondent: Dr David Jarman
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 21 November 2006
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Costs Determination After Appeal Judgment
Outcome: Appeal dismissed as to costs; application for leave to appeal refused; costs orders made as specified.
Legal Topics: Costs Assessment, Legal Aid, Appeal Procedure

Civil Procedure Costs Costs Assessment Legal Aid Appeal Procedure

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 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Arpad Toth

Claimant/appellant

Dr David Jarman

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Costs Determination After Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Appropriate apportionment of costs between issues of negligence and causation
2 Entitlement to costs where appellant was legally aided for part of the proceedings
3 Whether appellant's Article 2 rights under the Human Rights Convention were breached

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as to costs; application for leave to appeal refused; costs orders made as specified.

Orders

Appellant to pay respondent's costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis, except where covered by public funds.
Full costs of the appeal to be determined by a costs judge.