Dockerill & Anor v Tullett

Dockerill & Anor v Tullett

Costs in approval proceedings for child claimants under CPR 21.10(2) for claims under £1,000 are to be assessed under CPR 44.5, not the fixed costs regime; the court must scrutinise whether it was proportionate and necessary to instruct solicitors or counsel, and counsel's attendance fees are only recoverable if justified by complexity attributable to the claimant's status.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Master Corby Dockerill; Claimant/appellant: Demi Healey; Defendant/respondent: Mr S. Tullett; Claimant/appellant: Master Paddy Macefield; Defendant/respondent: Janos Bakos; Claimant/respondent: Rebecca Tubridy; Defendant/appellant: Mohammed Sarwar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals in Dockerill and Macefield dismissed; appeal in Tubridy allowed.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Fixed Costs Regime, Child Claimants, CPR 21.10(2), CPR 45 Part II, CPR 44.5, CPR 27.14, Disbursements, Counsel's Fees
Civil Procedure Costs Costs Assessment Fixed Costs Regime Child Claimants CPR 21.10(2) CPR 45 Part II CPR 44.5 +3 more

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Master Corby Dockerill

Claimant/appellant

Demi Healey

Claimant/appellant

Mr S. Tullett

Defendant/respondent

Master Paddy Macefield

Claimant/appellant

Janos Bakos

Defendant/respondent

Rebecca Tubridy

Claimant/respondent

Mohammed Sarwar

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs in approval proceedings for child claimants under CPR 21.10(2) are subject to fixed costs regime or detailed assessment
  2. 2 How detailed assessment should be conducted for claims under £1,000
  3. 3 Whether counsel's fees for attending approval hearings are recoverable as disbursements under CPR 45.10(2)(c)

Ratio Decidendi

Costs in approval proceedings for child claimants under CPR 21.10(2) for claims under £1,000 are to be assessed under CPR 44.5, not the fixed costs regime; the court must scrutinise whether it was proportionate and necessary to instruct solicitors or counsel, and counsel's attendance fees are only recoverable if justified by complexity attributable to the claimant's status.

Court Disposition

Appeals in Dockerill and Macefield dismissed; appeal in Tubridy allowed.

Orders

  • Costs in Dockerill and Macefield to be assessed under CPR 44.5 with scrutiny of necessity and proportionality.
  • Counsel's attendance fee in Tubridy not recoverable as disbursement under CPR 45.10(2)(c).