Pankhurst v Lee White Motor Insurers Bureau

Pankhurst v Lee White Motor Insurers Bureau

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was correct to refuse enhanced interest on damages for future losses, as binding authority restricts such awards to heads of damages that attract interest in the ordinary way. The judge was also entitled to refuse interest on costs, given the circumstances of the case, including the existence of a conditional fee agreement with no real risk to the solicitors and the operation of after-the-event insurance. The criticisms of the Part 36 regime are matters for law reform, not for the court.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: James Pankhurst; First Respondent/defendant: Lee White; Second Respondent/defendant: Motor Insurers Bureau
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury, Costs) / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Interest on Damages, Conditional Fee Agreements, After the Event Insurance, Indemnity Costs
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Part 36 Offers Interest on Damages Conditional Fee Agreements After the Event Insurance Indemnity Costs

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

Parties

James Pankhurst

Appellant/claimant

Lee White

First Respondent/defendant

Motor Insurers Bureau

Second Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury, Costs) / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in failing to award interest on damages for future losses under CPR 36.14(3)(a)
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in failing to award interest on costs under CPR 36.14(3)(c)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was correct to refuse enhanced interest on damages for future losses, as binding authority restricts such awards to heads of damages that attract interest in the ordinary way. The judge was also entitled to refuse interest on costs, given the circumstances of the case, including the existence of a conditional fee agreement with no real risk to the solicitors and the operation of after-the-event insurance. The criticisms of the Part 36 regime are matters for law reform, not for the court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.