0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Bakewell v Bevan, County Court, 17 March 2000

15 September 2000
The issues

Civil Procedure Rules – Defendant’s conduct at fault – conduct reflected in Costs Orders.

The facts

The Claimant’s vehicle damaged in a road traffic accident on July 18, 1999. The Claimant instructed Solicitors and a letter was sent on July 20, 1999 which was acknowledged by insurers July, 23. On August 3, Claimant Solicitors told insurers the cost of repairs and asked for an interim payment. Insurers replied that enquiries were continuing; “bear with us a little longer”. August 24, 1999 Claimant’s Solicitors told insurers of claim for inconvenience and loss of use and warned that proceedings would be commenced in fourteen days including claim for “full scale costs”. Letter was unacknowledged. Proceedings were issued on November 8, 1999. Acknowledgement of service was filed but no defence entered in time. Judgment in Default entered December 13, 1999 by which time witness statements had been prepared by Claimant. Liability subsequently admitted and claim settled for £620. Matter went to a Disposal Hearing (why? Because costs?). It did not allocate the claim but awarded fixed costs of £140 criticising the fact that lawyers had become involved at all. Claimant appealed.

The decision

The Judge found that the insurers had failed to deal expeditiously or sensibly. Costs had been incurred by the Claimant in order to bring a sensible end to the litigation. The costs were therefore awarded at £1486.50 plus the costs of Appeal assessed at £1712.10.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up