Barr & Ors v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No.2)

Barr & Ors v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No.2)

The defendant failed to demonstrate that the claimants' base costs were disproportionate or that the risk of disproportionate costs could not be controlled by case management or detailed assessment. CPR 44.18 does not permit a costs cap based solely on the ATE insurance limit or to address the commercial imbalance created by the GLO, CFA, and ATE structure. However, the court may link the claimants' recoverable costs to their current estimate, subject to safeguards and liberty to apply for modification.

Parties
Claimants: Derek Barr & Ors; Defendant: Biffa Waste Services Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation Order (glo) Civil (negligence/nuisance) / Application for Costs Capping Order Under CPR 44.18
Outcome
Costs capping order under CPR 44.18 refused; order made linking claimants' recoverable costs to their estimate, subject to safeguards.
Legal Topics
Costs Capping, Group Litigation Orders, ATE Insurance, Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa), Case Management
Civil Procedure Costs Costs Capping Group Litigation Orders ATE Insurance Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa) Case Management

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derek Barr & Ors

Claimants

Biffa Waste Services Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation Order (glo) Civil (negligence/nuisance) / Application for Costs Capping Order Under CPR 44.18

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs capping order should be made under CPR 44.18 in group litigation where claimants have ATE insurance and CFA.
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' costs are disproportionate and whether case management or detailed assessment can control costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to demonstrate that the claimants' base costs were disproportionate or that the risk of disproportionate costs could not be controlled by case management or detailed assessment. CPR 44.18 does not permit a costs cap based solely on the ATE insurance limit or to address the commercial imbalance created by the GLO, CFA, and ATE structure. However, the court may link the claimants' recoverable costs to their current estimate, subject to safeguards and liberty to apply for modification.

Court Disposition

Costs capping order under CPR 44.18 refused; order made linking claimants' recoverable costs to their estimate, subject to safeguards.

Orders

  • Claimants' recoverable future costs are limited to their estimate of £1,471,767, subject to liberty to apply for modification if assumptions change.
  • Defendant has liberty to apply for a stay or modification of the GLO or ATE terms at future hearings.