Finglands Coachways Ltd v O'Hare

Finglands Coachways Ltd v O'Hare

Under the pre-2013 Civil Procedure Rules, a costs judge is entitled to consider on an item-by-item basis whether a particular item of costs was proportionate and necessary for the conduct of litigation, even if overall costs appear proportionate. The judge did not misdirect himself in law or act unjustly; the application of necessity was not fatal and was consistent with the authorities. The appeal does not meet the threshold for appellate interference.

Parties
Applicant/defendant: Finglands Coachways Limited; Respondent/claimant: Mr Sebastian O'Hare (A protected party by his sister and litigation friend Ms Portia Crees)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (costs Assessment Appeal) / Judgment on Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal and the appeal itself dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Proportionality, Reasonableness, Necessity, Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Costs Costs Assessment Proportionality Reasonableness Necessity Civil Procedure Rules

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

Parties

Finglands Coachways Limited

Applicant/defendant

Mr Sebastian O'Hare (A protected party by his sister and litigation friend Ms Portia Crees)

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil (costs Assessment Appeal) / Judgment on Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether under the pre-2013 Civil Procedure Rules a costs judge can consider if individual items of costs claimed were proportionate and necessary even if overall costs appeared proportionate
  2. 2 Whether the costs judge erred in applying the test of necessity rather than reasonableness in the absence of a finding of disproportionality

Ratio Decidendi

Under the pre-2013 Civil Procedure Rules, a costs judge is entitled to consider on an item-by-item basis whether a particular item of costs was proportionate and necessary for the conduct of litigation, even if overall costs appear proportionate. The judge did not misdirect himself in law or act unjustly; the application of necessity was not fatal and was consistent with the authorities. The appeal does not meet the threshold for appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal and the appeal itself dismissed

Orders

  • Applicant must pay the claimant’s costs of the appeal