Curtiss & Ors v Zurich Insurance Plc & Anor (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1514 (TCC) (17 June 2022)

Curtiss & Ors v Zurich Insurance Plc & Anor (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1514 (TCC) (17 June 2022)

Zurich's application was fundamentally inappropriate, disproportionate, and oppressive, resulting in unnecessary costs. Despite some merit, the overall conduct justified an award of 75% of claimants' costs on the indemnity basis, with Zurich not recovering any of its own costs.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1514 (TCC)
Parties
Claimants: Angela Denise Curtiss and others; First Defendant: Zurich Insurance plc; Second Defendant: East West Insurance Company Limited (in administration)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Strike Out Motion Under CPR PD57 AC / Post Hearing, Costs Determination
Outcome
Zurich to pay 75% of claimants' costs of the application, assessed on the indemnity basis; Zurich not to recover any of its own costs.
Legal Topics
Witness Evidence, Practice Direction 57 AC, Costs Assessment, Indemnity Costs, Fraud Allegations
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Witness Evidence Practice Direction 57 AC Costs Assessment Indemnity Costs Fraud Allegations

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela Denise Curtiss and others

Claimants

Zurich Insurance plc

First Defendant

East West Insurance Company Limited (in administration)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Following Strike Out Motion Under CPR PD57 AC / Post Hearing, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Zurich's application to strike out witness evidence under CPR PD57AC was justified
  2. 2 Appropriate costs order and basis of assessment

Ratio Decidendi

Zurich's application was fundamentally inappropriate, disproportionate, and oppressive, resulting in unnecessary costs. Despite some merit, the overall conduct justified an award of 75% of claimants' costs on the indemnity basis, with Zurich not recovering any of its own costs.

Court Disposition

Zurich to pay 75% of claimants' costs of the application, assessed on the indemnity basis; Zurich not to recover any of its own costs.

Orders

  • Zurich to pay 75% of claimants' costs, assessed on the indemnity basis.
  • No costs recovery for Zurich.