Muhammad Tanveer Amjad v UK Insurance Limited

Muhammad Tanveer Amjad v UK Insurance Limited

The judge erred in law by finding that both CPR r.44.16(2)(a) and (b) applied; only (a) applied as the benefit of the credit hire claim was for the credit hire company, not the claimant. The judge was not empowered to lift the QOCS cap against the claimant without considering a non-party costs order against the credit hire company. Even if (b) applied, the judge failed to consider all relevant factors, including the claimant's modest means and the proper characterisation of the proceedings as a PI claim 'in the round'. The QOCS cap should not have been lifted against the claimant.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mr Muhammad Tanveer Amjad; Respondent/defendant: UK Insurance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Costs Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (qocs), Credit Hire Charges, Mixed Claims, Non Party Costs Orders (npco), Impecuniosity, Part 36 Offers
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (qocs) Credit Hire Charges Mixed Claims Non Party Costs Orders (npco) Impecuniosity +1 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Muhammad Tanveer Amjad

Appellant/claimant

UK Insurance Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Costs Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in lifting the QOCS cap under CPR r.44.16(2) against the claimant in a mixed claim involving credit hire charges
  2. 2 Whether the benefit of the credit hire claim was for the claimant or a third party (the credit hire company)
  3. 3 Whether the judge misapplied the law or omitted relevant factors in exercising discretion to lift the QOCS cap

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by finding that both CPR r.44.16(2)(a) and (b) applied; only (a) applied as the benefit of the credit hire claim was for the credit hire company, not the claimant. The judge was not empowered to lift the QOCS cap against the claimant without considering a non-party costs order against the credit hire company. Even if (b) applied, the judge failed to consider all relevant factors, including the claimant's modest means and the proper characterisation of the proceedings as a PI claim 'in the round'. The QOCS cap should not have been lifted against the claimant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Paragraph 5 of the order of HHJ Pearce dated 16.9.2022 set aside
  • Enforcement of the defendant’s costs capped in accordance with CPR r.44.14(1)