Naylor v Monahan & Anor

Naylor v Monahan & Anor

The judge's summary assessment of costs was within the broad discretion allowed by the CPR, as he considered the individual items, responded to criticisms of excessiveness, and provided a reasonable and proportionate reduction in hours, even if his reasoning was terse.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Leslie Stuart Naylor; 1st Defendant/respondent: David Monahan; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Churchill Insurance Co Ltd T/A Prudential
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (costs Assessment)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Summary Assessment of Costs, Costs in Civil Litigation, Appeals on Costs, Proportionality of Costs
Civil Procedure Summary Assessment of Costs Costs in Civil Litigation Appeals on Costs Proportionality of Costs

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 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leslie Stuart Naylor

Claimant/appellant

David Monahan

1st Defendant/respondent

Churchill Insurance Co Ltd T/A Prudential

2nd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (costs Assessment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in the summary assessment of costs by failing to consider each item in the bill and by not providing sufficient reasoning for the reduction in hours claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's summary assessment of costs was within the broad discretion allowed by the CPR, as he considered the individual items, responded to criticisms of excessiveness, and provided a reasonable and proportionate reduction in hours, even if his reasoning was terse.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused.