Thomas & Ors v PGI Group Ltd (includes Costs Ruling) [2021] EWHC 2776 (QB) (19 October 2021)

Thomas & Ors v PGI Group Ltd (includes Costs Ruling) [2021] EWHC 2776 (QB) (19 October 2021)

The court held that it would not be appropriate, having regard to the principle of proportionality, to cap the Claimants' recoverable costs at a figure less than the minimum required to litigate their claims effectively in the High Court. The preconditions for a CCO under CPR 3.19(5) were not satisfied, as there was no substantial risk that costs would be disproportionately incurred if a CCO was not made. The Claimants' objectives included vindication and public interest, making it proportionate for them to incur substantial costs. Costs budgeting and detailed assessment were adequate to control costs. The application for a CCO was refused.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2776 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Magret Thomas and Others; Defendant: PGI Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Civil Proceedings / Ruling on Application for Costs Capping Order at Costs and Case Management Conference
Outcome
Application for Costs Capping Order refused
Legal Topics
Costs Capping Orders, Costs Budgeting, Proportionality of Costs, Jurisdiction, Personal Injury, Human Rights
Civil Procedure Costs Law Costs Capping Orders Costs Budgeting Proportionality of Costs Jurisdiction Personal Injury Human Rights

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

Parties

Magret Thomas and Others

Claimant

PGI Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Civil Proceedings / Ruling on Application for Costs Capping Order at Costs and Case Management Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Costs Capping Order (CCO) should be made under CPR 3.19 limiting the Claimants' recoverable future costs to £150,000
  2. 2 Whether the preconditions for a CCO under CPR 3.19(5) are satisfied
  3. 3 Whether costs budgeting or detailed assessment can adequately control the risk of disproportionate costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it would not be appropriate, having regard to the principle of proportionality, to cap the Claimants' recoverable costs at a figure less than the minimum required to litigate their claims effectively in the High Court. The preconditions for a CCO under CPR 3.19(5) were not satisfied, as there was no substantial risk that costs would be disproportionately incurred if a CCO was not made. The Claimants' objectives included vindication and public interest, making it proportionate for them to incur substantial costs. Costs budgeting and detailed assessment were adequate to control costs. The application for a CCO was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for Costs Capping Order refused

Orders

  • No Costs Capping Order is made.