Dickinson v Rushmer [2001] EWHC 9018 (Costs) (21 December 2001)

Dickinson v Rushmer [2001] EWHC 9018 (Costs) (21 December 2001)

The procedure adopted by the costs judge was unfair because the defendant was not permitted to see documents relied upon by the claimant to prove a disputed issue of fact; fairness required disclosure of those documents.

Citation
[2001] EWHC 9018 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Dickinson; Defendant: Rushmer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment Appeal / Appeal From Deputy Costs Judge to High Court
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Indemnity Principle, Disclosure of Documents, Privilege in Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Principle Disclosure of Documents Privilege in Costs Assessment

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

Parties

Dickinson

Claimant

Rushmer

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment Appeal / Appeal From Deputy Costs Judge to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should have been permitted to see documents shown to the Costs Judge during costs assessment
  2. 2 Whether the client care letter and payment calculations were privileged from production

Ratio Decidendi

The procedure adopted by the costs judge was unfair because the defendant was not permitted to see documents relied upon by the claimant to prove a disputed issue of fact; fairness required disclosure of those documents.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed; the defendant should have been permitted to see the documents shown to the Costs Judge.