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)

Claimants' late application for relief from sanctions caused limited prejudice to defendants, but not enough to deprive claimants of all or most assessment costs; claimants' conduct warranted a 25% reduction in costs for both bills; claimants entitled to costs of appeal and cross-appeal, but not costs relating to application to admit fresh evidence and subject to 10% deduction on cross-appeal costs.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3054
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
Appeal From Senior Court Costs Office / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed, costs orders varied
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Detailed Assessment of Costs, Offers to Settle, Conduct of Parties, Indemnity Costs, Standard Costs, Success Fees, ATE Insurance Premium
Civil Procedure Costs Relief From Sanctions Detailed Assessment of Costs Offers to Settle Conduct of Parties Indemnity Costs Standard Costs +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
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

Appeal From Senior Court Costs Office / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs orders below should be varied due to late application for relief from sanctions
  2. 2 Appropriate costs sanction for prejudice caused by late application
  3. 3 Entitlement to costs of appeal and cross-appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants' late application for relief from sanctions caused limited prejudice to defendants, but not enough to deprive claimants of all or most assessment costs; claimants' conduct warranted a 25% reduction in costs for both bills; claimants entitled to costs of appeal and cross-appeal, but not costs relating to application to admit fresh evidence and subject to 10% deduction on cross-appeal costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed, costs orders varied

Orders

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