Woolley v Haden Building Services Ltd (No.2) [2008] EWHC 90111 (Costs) (11 August 2008)

Woolley v Haden Building Services Ltd (No.2) [2008] EWHC 90111 (Costs) (11 August 2008)

The defendant did not establish reasonable reliance on the claimant's costs estimate; the complications in the case justified the increased costs, and the overall costs were not disproportionate to the damages recovered. The claimant is not limited to the original estimate, and the detailed assessment will proceed without applying the necessity test for proportionality.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 90111 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Barbara June Woolley (Widow and Personal Representative of the Estate of David John Woolley, Deceased); Defendant: Haden Building Services Limited (No.2)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment (high Court, Supreme Court Costs Office) / Preliminary Issues Before Detailed Assessment
Outcome
Defendant's preliminary objections on reliance and proportionality dismissed; detailed assessment to proceed.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas), Costs Estimates, Proportionality, Hourly Rates, Success Fees, Costs Capping, Detailed Assessment
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas) Costs Estimates Proportionality Hourly Rates Success Fees Costs Capping +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barbara June Woolley (Widow and Personal Representative of the Estate of David John Woolley, Deceased)

Claimant

Haden Building Services Limited (No.2)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment (high Court, Supreme Court Costs Office) / Preliminary Issues Before Detailed Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's solicitors should be limited to the costs estimate provided in the allocation questionnaire plus a margin
  2. 2 Whether the defendant reasonably relied on the claimant's costs estimate
  3. 3 Whether the overall costs claimed are proportionate to the damages recovered

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant did not establish reasonable reliance on the claimant's costs estimate; the complications in the case justified the increased costs, and the overall costs were not disproportionate to the damages recovered. The claimant is not limited to the original estimate, and the detailed assessment will proceed without applying the necessity test for proportionality.

Court Disposition

Defendant's preliminary objections on reliance and proportionality dismissed; detailed assessment to proceed.

Orders

  • No cap imposed on claimant's recoverable costs based on the estimate.
  • Detailed assessment to proceed without necessity test for proportionality.