Swift v Carpenter

Swift v Carpenter

The application for a PCO is dismissed because binding authority (Eweida v British Airways plc) establishes that PCOs are not available in private litigation where the applicant has a significant private interest, and the present case is standard private litigation for damages. Even if a more flexible approach were permissible, the facts do not justify granting a PCO as the increased costs resulted from the appellant's own tactical decisions and there was delay in making the application.

Parties
Appellant: Charlotte Swift; Respondent: Malcolm Carpenter; Intervener: Personal Injuries Bar Association
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Protective Costs Order (pco) on Appeal
Outcome
Application for Protective Costs Order dismissed
Legal Topics
Protective Costs Orders, Costs in Civil Litigation, Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (qocs), Appeals Procedure
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Protective Costs Orders Costs in Civil Litigation Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (qocs) Appeals Procedure

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charlotte Swift

Appellant

Malcolm Carpenter

Respondent

Personal Injuries Bar Association

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Protective Costs Order (pco) on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a Protective Costs Order (PCO) in private law litigation involving a significant private interest
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances of the case justify the exercise of discretion to grant a PCO

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a PCO is dismissed because binding authority (Eweida v British Airways plc) establishes that PCOs are not available in private litigation where the applicant has a significant private interest, and the present case is standard private litigation for damages. Even if a more flexible approach were permissible, the facts do not justify granting a PCO as the increased costs resulted from the appellant's own tactical decisions and there was delay in making the application.

Court Disposition

Application for Protective Costs Order dismissed

Orders

  • The application for a Protective Costs Order is dismissed.