Widlake v BAA Ltd

Widlake v BAA Ltd

The trial judge misdirected himself in characterising the claimant’s conduct as a grand-scale manipulation of the civil justice system akin to Molloy; the exaggeration, while dishonest, was not of the same magnitude and the defendant was aware of the true position well before trial. The proper approach is to apply the Civil Procedure Rules, treating exaggeration as relevant conduct affecting costs. The claimant was the successful party, having beaten the Part 36 payment, but her dishonesty and failure to negotiate justified depriving her of costs. The correct order is no order as to costs, rather than awarding costs against her.

Parties
Appellant: Martine Widlake; Respondent: BAA Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division) on Costs Order After Judgment for Personal Injury Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs, Exaggeration of Claims, Part 36 Offers, Conduct of Parties
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Exaggeration of Claims Part 36 Offers Conduct of Parties

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martine Widlake

Appellant

BAA Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division) on Costs Order After Judgment for Personal Injury Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in awarding costs against the claimant despite her beating the defendant’s Part 36 payment into court
  2. 2 How deliberate exaggeration and dishonesty by a claimant should affect costs orders under the Civil Procedure Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge misdirected himself in characterising the claimant’s conduct as a grand-scale manipulation of the civil justice system akin to Molloy; the exaggeration, while dishonest, was not of the same magnitude and the defendant was aware of the true position well before trial. The proper approach is to apply the Civil Procedure Rules, treating exaggeration as relevant conduct affecting costs. The claimant was the successful party, having beaten the Part 36 payment, but her dishonesty and failure to negotiate justified depriving her of costs. The correct order is no order as to costs, rather than awarding costs against her.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judge’s order set aside
  • No order as to costs below