Haynes v Department for Business Innovation And Skills

Haynes v Department for Business Innovation And Skills

The claimant is entitled to recover non-specific common or generic costs on a 100% basis from the eighth defendant, as these would have been incurred in any event, but specific common costs may be apportioned, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a one-tenth division is not perverse. The appeal is allowed in part and remitted for identification of non-specific costs.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Jean Mary Doris Haynes (Personal Representative of the Estate of Brian Haynes Deceased); Respondent/defendant: Department for Business Innovation and Skills
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (costs) / Appeal From Senior Court Costs Office Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed in part, otherwise dismissed
Legal Topics
Part 36 Offers, Costs Apportionment, Multi Defendant Litigation, Detailed Assessment
Civil Procedure Costs Part 36 Offers Costs Apportionment Multi Defendant Litigation Detailed Assessment

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean Mary Doris Haynes (Personal Representative of the Estate of Brian Haynes Deceased)

Appellant/claimant

Department for Business Innovation and Skills

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (costs) / Appeal From Senior Court Costs Office Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to all reasonable costs incurred or only those attributable to the eighth defendant and a proportion of common costs
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of 'costs of the proceedings' under CPR r.36.10(1) in multi-defendant cases
  3. 3 Basis for apportionment or division of common or generic costs

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is entitled to recover non-specific common or generic costs on a 100% basis from the eighth defendant, as these would have been incurred in any event, but specific common costs may be apportioned, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a one-tenth division is not perverse. The appeal is allowed in part and remitted for identification of non-specific costs.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part, otherwise dismissed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to Master Simons to identify non-specific common or generic costs, which are to be paid by the eighth defendant on a 100% basis
  • Claimant awarded one-third of her costs of the appeal and one-third of her costs below, to be assessed if not agreed