IEH v John Ross Powell

IEH v John Ross Powell

It would be unjust to apply the usual costs order under CPR 36.13(5)(b) because the claimant was a child with a traumatic brain injury, the long-term effects of which could not be known until after puberty. The need for updated medical evidence and court approval, combined with the unique circumstances of the case, take it out of the norm and justify departure from the normal costs consequences. However, the claimant's solicitors' failure to disclose relevant evidence to the defendant in a timely manner is a conduct issue that may affect the final costs order.

Parties
Claimant: IEH; Defendant: John Ross Powell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Application for Approval of Settlement and Costs Order Following Late Acceptance of Part 36 Offer
Outcome
Application allowed in part; court finds it unjust to apply the usual costs order under CPR 36.13(5)(b), but reserves decision on the extent of costs reduction due to claimant's conduct.
Legal Topics
Costs Consequences of Part 36 Offers, Settlement Approval for Minors, Brain Injury Litigation, Litigation Involving Children, Reasonableness and Injustice Under CPR 36.13
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Consequences of Part 36 Offers Settlement Approval for Minors Brain Injury Litigation Litigation Involving Children Reasonableness and Injustice Under CPR 36.13

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IEH

Claimant

John Ross Powell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Application for Approval of Settlement and Costs Order Following Late Acceptance of Part 36 Offer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it would be unjust to apply the usual costs order under CPR 36.13(5)(b) following late acceptance of a Part 36 offer in a child brain injury case
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's conduct and circumstances justify departure from the normal costs consequences

Ratio Decidendi

It would be unjust to apply the usual costs order under CPR 36.13(5)(b) because the claimant was a child with a traumatic brain injury, the long-term effects of which could not be known until after puberty. The need for updated medical evidence and court approval, combined with the unique circumstances of the case, take it out of the norm and justify departure from the normal costs consequences. However, the claimant's solicitors' failure to disclose relevant evidence to the defendant in a timely manner is a conduct issue that may affect the final costs order.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; court finds it unjust to apply the usual costs order under CPR 36.13(5)(b), but reserves decision on the extent of costs reduction due to claimant's conduct.

Orders

  • Settlement approved.
  • Defendant to pay claimant's costs, subject to possible reduction for conduct issues.