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?

Booth v Britannia Hotels Limited, Court of Appeal, 26 March 2002

2 April 2002
The issues

Costs – exaggeration of injury.

The facts

The Claimant suffered a crush injury to her left hand. She was subsequently diagnosed as suffering from reflex sympathetic dystrophy. A Schedule of Loss to the extent of £617,000.00 was served shortly before the Trial. The Defendants disclosed video evidence which showed Claimant with full movement of the affected limb. The Claimant subsequently agreed to accept an earlier Payment into Court of £2,500.00 and the Defendant agreed to bear the Claimant’s costs. The Costs were over £82,000.00. The District Judge ordered the Defendant to pay 60% of the sum claimed finding that the video evidence had been disclosed late. The Judge dismissed the Defendant’s Appeal agreeing that the Defendant had decided to disclose the video evidence late for tactical reasons and had therefore to suffer the costs consequences. The Defendants appealed.

The decision

1. The decisions on costs which were within the discretion of the Judge should not be interfered with unless they were plainly wrong.

2. This decision was plainly wrong; it could not be reasonable to conclude that a party could recover in excess of £50,000, for a recovery of £2,500.

3. The Claimant had pursued a claim for an injury she had not suffered. There was no reason for the defendant to bear those costs.

Appeal allowed and matter remitted to the District Judge.

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.

View

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.

View

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.

View

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.

View

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