Manning & Anor v King's College Hospital NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 3054 (QB) (21 November 2011)

Manning & Anor v King's College Hospital NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 3054 (QB) (21 November 2011)

A 25% reduction in the claimants' costs of assessment for both bills is appropriate to reflect limited prejudice to the defendants and the claimants' failure to comply promptly with procedural rules. The claimants are entitled to their costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, but not the costs of the application to admit fresh evidence, and their costs of the cross-appeal are reduced by 10%.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3054 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Nicholas Andrew Manning; Claimant/appellant: Michael John Beggs; Defendant/respondent: King's College Hospital NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal Following Detailed Assessment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; costs orders varied.
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Detailed Assessment of Costs, Offers to Settle, Success Fees, ATE Insurance Premium, Conduct of Parties, CPR 47.18, CPR 44.3
Civil Procedure Costs Relief From Sanctions Detailed Assessment of Costs Offers to Settle Success Fees ATE Insurance Premium Conduct of Parties +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Andrew Manning

Claimant/appellant

Michael John Beggs

Claimant/appellant

King's College Hospital NHS Trust

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal Following Detailed Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there should be a costs sanction in lieu of the Master's refusal of relief from sanctions for a 17 month period
  2. 2 Appropriate costs orders for the assessment of the High Court and Court of Appeal bills
  3. 3 Entitlement to costs of the appeal and cross-appeal

Ratio Decidendi

A 25% reduction in the claimants' costs of assessment for both bills is appropriate to reflect limited prejudice to the defendants and the claimants' failure to comply promptly with procedural rules. The claimants are entitled to their costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, but not the costs of the application to admit fresh evidence, and their costs of the cross-appeal are reduced by 10%.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; costs orders varied.

Orders

  • Relief from sanctions granted for the 17 month period; additional liabilities recoverable.
  • Claimants to recover 75% of their assessed costs of the High Court and Court of Appeal bills.