England and Wales Case Law

Muhammad Osama Khan v Aviva Insurance Limited

The District Judge was entitled to make a costs order as the application to transfer to Part 7 at Stage 3 was not provided for in the Protocol or fixed costs regime, and such costs are at large and recoverable in the usual way. The DDJ did not make a costs order under CPR 44.11 for unreasonable conduct, but was correct to make a standard costs order. The Defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction for costs orders
• Fixed costs regime
• Abuse of process
• Personal injury claims
• Road traffic accident protocol

Read case analysis

Motor Insurers' Bureau v Santiago

Motor Insurers' Bureau v Santiago [2026] EWHC 513 (KB) (19 February 2026)

High Court appeal on whether an interpreter’s fee was recoverable as a disbursement. The court upheld the assessed fee and dismissed the appeal.

• Disbursements
• Fixed costs regime
• Interpreter fees
• Assessment of costs
• Civil-procedure
• Costs

Read case analysis

Jayden James Smithstone v Tranmoor Primary School

Although a 90:10 liability offer is in principle capable of engaging CPR 36.17, on the facts of this case, liability was never determined and the outcome was not more advantageous to the claimant than the offer. Therefore, the claimant's solicitors are limited to recovering fixed costs.

Source excerpt

• Costs
• Part 36 offers
• Fixed costs regime
• Settlement
• Judgment definition

Read case analysis

Smithstone v Tranmoor Primary School

Smithstone v Tranmoor Primary School [2026] EWCA Civ 13 (16 January 2026)

The Court of Appeal held that a 90:10 liability Part 36 offer can, in principle, engage CPR 36.17, but the claimant could not recover enhanced costs here.

• Costs
• Part 36 offers
• Fixed costs regime
• Settlement
• Judgment definition
• Part-36-offers

Read case analysis

Khan v Aviva Insurance Ltd

Khan v Aviva Insurance Ltd [2026] EWCC 2 (09 January 2026)

The County Court dismissed Aviva’s appeal against a costs order, holding the district judge had jurisdiction to award costs outside the fixed costs regime.

• Costs orders
• Fixed costs regime
• Cpr 45 part iii
• Practice direction 49f
• Abuse of process
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

Laura Attersley v UK Insurance Limited

On appeal, the court held that an ex-Protocol claim allocated to the multi-track falls outside CPR 36.20, so costs were to be assessed on the standard basis.

• Costs assessment
• Fixed costs regime
• Part 36 offers
• Multi-track allocation
• Statutory interpretation
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

Attersley v UK Insurance Ltd

Attersley v UK Insurance Ltd [2025] EWHC 884 (KB) (11 April 2025)

The High Court held that, after a claim was allocated to the multi-track, the fixed costs regime no longer applied and CPR 36.20 did not govern late acceptance.

• Costs
• Fixed costs regime
• Part 36 offers
• Multi-track allocation
• Statutory interpretation
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

GH v H

The court has power to make a charging order in respect of sums due to a child under a financial order, interest accrues on unpaid periodical payments ordered in the High Court, and the fixed costs regime may be disapplied where the respondent's conduct justifies it.

Source excerpt

• Enforcement of financial orders
• Charging orders
• Interest on periodical payments
• Fixed costs regime

Read case analysis

GH v H

GH v H [2024] EWHC 2869 (Fam) (12 November 2024)

The High Court made a final charging order in family proceedings, holding it could secure sums payable to the parties’ child and include interest on unpaid periodical payments.

• Enforcement of financial orders
• Charging orders
• Interest on periodical payments
• Fixed costs regime
• Jurisdiction of high court vs family court
• Charging-orders

Read case analysis

Raphael De Lima Santiago v Motor Insurers' Bureau

Interpreter’s fees reasonably incurred to enable a vulnerable party to participate fully and give best evidence are recoverable as a disbursement under CPR 45.29I(h), as this interpretation accords with the overriding objective and is not precluded by Cham, which is distinguishable.

Source excerpt

• Fixed costs regime
• Disbursements
• Access to justice
• Vulnerable parties
• Interpreter fees

Read case analysis