XX (a protected party by her husband and litigation friend YY) & Anor v Jordan Young & Anor

XX (a protected party by her husband and litigation friend YY) & Anor v Jordan Young & Anor

Permission to appeal is refused because the proposed appeal lacks real prospect of success and there is no compelling reason for it to be heard. The 2nd Defendant's arguments for further reductions based on conduct or proportionality were considered and rejected during assessment. There is no procedural tension between CPR 44.11 and section 57 that warrants appellate intervention. The costs order was agreed and cannot be retrospectively limited.

Parties
Claimant: XX (a protected party by her husband and litigation friend YY); Claimant: ZZ; Defendant: Jordan Young; Defendant: Aviva Insurance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Proportionality, Misconduct, Fundamental Dishonesty, Appeals
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Assessment Proportionality Misconduct Fundamental Dishonesty Appeals

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XX (a protected party by her husband and litigation friend YY)

Claimant

ZZ

Claimant

Jordan Young

Defendant

Aviva Insurance Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against the costs assessment judgment
  2. 2 Whether further reductions to the claimant's costs are warranted based on conduct or proportionality
  3. 3 Whether CPR 44.11 misconduct can be found without a trial finding of fundamental dishonesty

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is refused because the proposed appeal lacks real prospect of success and there is no compelling reason for it to be heard. The 2nd Defendant's arguments for further reductions based on conduct or proportionality were considered and rejected during assessment. There is no procedural tension between CPR 44.11 and section 57 that warrants appellate intervention. The costs order was agreed and cannot be retrospectively limited.

Court Disposition

application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to the costs of today's hearing
  • 2nd Defendant to pay 2nd Claimant's costs of assessment as previously agreed