Fullick & Ors v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1941 (QB) (25 July 2019)

Fullick & Ors v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1941 (QB) (25 July 2019)

The Deputy Master did not err in principle in allowing costs of attendance and preparation for the inquest as costs of the civil claim, as these were relevant to the issues in the civil claim and proportionate in the circumstances. However, the Deputy Master erred in law by failing to assess whether all work claimed under items 68 and 69 (civil claim documents work) was relevant to the civil claim and proportionate. These items must be reassessed to determine the extent to which the work was relevant and proportionate to the civil claim, and the total costs award must be reconsidered in light of this reassessment.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1941
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Diana Fullick; Claimant/respondent: Clara Fullick; Claimant/respondent: Denise Bacchus; Defendant/appellant: The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Recoverability of Inquest Costs in Civil Claims, Proportionality of Costs Under CPR 44.3, Assessment of Costs Post Jackson Reforms, Article 2 ECHR Claims, Police Liability
Civil Procedure Human Rights Law Costs Recoverability of Inquest Costs in Civil Claims Proportionality of Costs Under CPR 44.3 Assessment of Costs Post Jackson Reforms Article 2 ECHR Claims Police Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diana Fullick

Claimant/respondent

Clara Fullick

Claimant/respondent

Denise Bacchus

Claimant/respondent

The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs incurred in attending and preparing for an inquest are recoverable as costs in a subsequent or related civil claim
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Master erred in law in assessing the proportionality and reasonableness of the costs awarded, particularly in light of the settlement amount and the scope of the civil claim
  3. 3 Whether the Deputy Master failed to distinguish between costs relevant to the civil claim and those only relevant to the inquest

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Master did not err in principle in allowing costs of attendance and preparation for the inquest as costs of the civil claim, as these were relevant to the issues in the civil claim and proportionate in the circumstances. However, the Deputy Master erred in law by failing to assess whether all work claimed under items 68 and 69 (civil claim documents work) was relevant to the civil claim and proportionate. These items must be reassessed to determine the extent to which the work was relevant and proportionate to the civil claim, and the total costs award must be reconsidered in light of this reassessment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The award of costs for items 68 and 69 in the Bill of Costs is set aside and must be reassessed by a Costs Judge other than Master Rowley.
  • The total costs to be awarded are to be reassessed in light of the reassessment of items 68 and 69.