0370 270 6000

Lownds v Home Office, Court of Appeal (including Lord Woolf CJ)

2 April 2002
The issues

Costs – proportionality.

The facts

The Claimant brought a clinical negligence action which settled for £3,000.00. The Claimants costs were assessed at £16,784.00. The Defendant appealed to the Judge who dismissed the appeal and subsequently to the Court of Appeal.

The decision

(Lord Woolf CJ)

1. It was essential that Courts give appropriate significance to the requirement of proportionality when assessing and making Orders for costs.

2. A two-stage approach was required. There had to be a global and an item by item approach. The global approach would indicate whether the total sum claimed appeared to be disproportionate. This had to be having regard to Civil Procedure Rules 44.5(iii) i.e. – conduct – efforts made before or during proceedings to settle – the value of the claim – the importance of the matter to the parties – complexity or novelty of the matter – the time spent – the skill, specialised knowledge and responsibility involved – the place and the circumstances in which the work or some of it was carried out.

3. If the costs as a whole were not disproportionate under that test, then all that was further required was that each item should have been reasonably incurred and that the costs for that item should be reasonable.

4. If the costs appeared disproportionate, then the Court would want to be satisfied that the work in respect of each item was necessary and that the cost, if necessary, was reasonable.

5. Where proportionality was in issue, the Costs Judge must give a preliminary Judgment.

6. In deciding what was necessary the other party’s conduct was highly relevant. The other party could not complain if it had been uncooperative.

7. Whether costs were proportionate should be decided having regard to what was reasonable for the party in question to believe might be recovered.

Appeal Dismissed

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