0370 270 6000

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

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


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.


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