Barr & Ors v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No.2) [2009] EWHC 2444 (TCC) (2 October 2009)

Barr & Ors v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No.2) [2009] EWHC 2444 (TCC) (2 October 2009)

The court held that a costs capping order under CPR 44.18 was not justified because the claimants' base costs were not disproportionate when measured against the value of the claim or the defendant's own costs, and any risk of disproportionate costs could be adequately controlled by case management and detailed assessment. The imbalance between the parties was a product of the GLO, CFA, and ATE terms, not the claimants' future costs. However, the court ordered that the claimants' future costs recovery be linked to their current estimate, subject to liberty to apply for modification if assumptions change.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2444 (TCC)
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) Negligence and Nuisance / Interlocutory Application for Costs Capping Order
Outcome
Application for costs capping order under CPR 44.18 refused; order made linking claimants' future costs recovery to their current estimate, subject to safeguards.
Legal Topics
Costs Capping Orders, ATE Insurance, Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa), Group Litigation Orders (glo), Case Management, Proportionality of Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Group Litigation Costs Capping Orders ATE Insurance Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa) Group Litigation Orders (glo) Case Management +1 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derek Barr & Ors

Claimants

Biffa Waste Services Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation Order (glo) Negligence and Nuisance / Interlocutory Application for Costs Capping Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs capping order should be made under CPR 44.18 limiting the claimants' recoverable costs to the amount of their ATE insurance or otherwise.
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' estimated costs are disproportionate and require capping.
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to cap costs in the interests of justice given the imbalance between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a costs capping order under CPR 44.18 was not justified because the claimants' base costs were not disproportionate when measured against the value of the claim or the defendant's own costs, and any risk of disproportionate costs could be adequately controlled by case management and detailed assessment. The imbalance between the parties was a product of the GLO, CFA, and ATE terms, not the claimants' future costs. However, the court ordered that the claimants' future costs recovery be linked to their current estimate, subject to liberty to apply for modification if assumptions change.

Court Disposition

Application for costs capping order under CPR 44.18 refused; order made linking claimants' future costs recovery to their current estimate, subject to safeguards.

Orders

  • No costs capping order under CPR 44.18.
  • Claimants' future costs recovery limited to their current estimate (£1,471,767), subject to liberty to apply for modification if assumptions change.