Murray v Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust

Murray v Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust

The errors in the Bill of Costs did not amount to unreasonable or improper conduct under CPR 44.11, as they were either trifling or honest mistakes without intent to mislead, and the Defendant was not prejudiced. The ATE insurance premium was not shown to be unreasonable or disproportionate, as the Defendant failed to provide evidence of a cheaper alternative or comparators, and the Deputy Master was entitled to accept the premium as reasonable in the circumstances.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Richard Murray; Defendant/appellant: Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Detailed Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa), ATE Insurance Premiums, CPR 44.11 Sanctions, Mis Certification of Bills, Success Fees, Proportionality of Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Law Medical Negligence Detailed Assessment of Costs Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa) ATE Insurance Premiums CPR 44.11 Sanctions Mis Certification of Bills +2 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Murray

Claimant/respondent

Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether errors in the Bill of Costs amounted to unreasonable or improper conduct under CPR 44.11
  2. 2 Whether the ATE insurance premium was disproportionate and unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The errors in the Bill of Costs did not amount to unreasonable or improper conduct under CPR 44.11, as they were either trifling or honest mistakes without intent to mislead, and the Defendant was not prejudiced. The ATE insurance premium was not shown to be unreasonable or disproportionate, as the Defendant failed to provide evidence of a cheaper alternative or comparators, and the Deputy Master was entitled to accept the premium as reasonable in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed on both grounds.
  • The Deputy Master's assessment of costs and allowance of the ATE premium stands.