Finglands Coachways Ltd v O'Hare [2014] EWHC 1513 (QB) (14 May 2014)

Finglands Coachways Ltd v O'Hare [2014] EWHC 1513 (QB) (14 May 2014)

Under the pre-2013 Civil Procedure Rules, a costs judge may consider whether individual items of costs are proportionate and necessary even if overall costs appear proportionate. The judge did not misdirect himself in law by considering necessity and reasonableness for individual items, and his approach was not procedurally irregular or unjust.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1513
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
Costs Appeal (detailed Assessment) / Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal and the appeal itself dismissed.
Legal Topics
Detailed Assessment of Costs, Proportionality in Costs, Standard Basis Assessment, Necessity Vs Reasonableness in Costs, Civil Procedure Rules (pre 2013)
Civil Procedure Costs Detailed Assessment of Costs Proportionality in Costs Standard Basis Assessment Necessity Vs Reasonableness in Costs Civil Procedure Rules (pre 2013)

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

Costs Appeal (detailed Assessment) / Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

Under the pre-2013 Civil Procedure Rules, a costs judge may consider whether individual items of costs are proportionate and necessary even if overall costs appear proportionate. The judge did not misdirect himself in law by considering necessity and reasonableness for individual items, and his approach was not procedurally irregular or unjust.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal and the appeal itself dismissed.

Orders

  • Applicant to pay the claimant's costs of the appeal.