Murray v Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 539 (QB) (08 March 2019)

Murray v Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 539 (QB) (08 March 2019)

The errors in the Bill of Costs did not amount to unreasonable or improper conduct under CPR 44.11, as they were honest mistakes without intent to mislead and did not prejudice the Defendant. The ATE insurance premium was allowed in full as the Defendant failed to provide evidence that the premium was unreasonable or that a cheaper alternative was available.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 539 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Richard Murray; Defendant/appellant: Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence Costs Appeal / Appeal From Detailed Assessment Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mis Certification of Bill of Costs, CPR 44.11 Sanctions, ATE Insurance Premium, Success Fee Assessment, Conditional Fee Agreements
Civil Procedure Costs Mis Certification of Bill of Costs CPR 44.11 Sanctions ATE Insurance Premium Success Fee Assessment Conditional Fee Agreements

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 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Murray

Claimant/respondent

Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Costs Appeal / Appeal From Detailed Assessment Order

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 or 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 honest mistakes without intent to mislead and did not prejudice the Defendant. The ATE insurance premium was allowed in full as the Defendant failed to provide evidence that the premium was unreasonable or that a cheaper alternative was available.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Deputy Master Campbell dated 28 March 2018 affirmed
  • Claimant's costs of the substantive action assessed at £114,364.80