0370 270 6000

Clyde and Others v Thomson Holidays

20 November 2002
The issues

Costs – proportionality – whether in considering proportionality the Costs Judge should take into account pre-Civil Procedure Rules work.

The facts

14 Claimants were entitled to recover costs from the Defendant. The total bill was £166,387.95. The matter came before the Master on a preliminary issue. The question was, whilst the Rules and the case of Lownds were authority for the view that costs undertaken pre-introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules could not be subject to the proportionality test, did this mean that in assessing a bill which covered both pre and post-Civil Procedure Rules work, the Costs Judge could only consider proportionality in the light of post Civil Procedure Rules work or was he entitled to look at the totality of the bill, in order to decide whether the post Civil Procedure Rules work was proportional.

The decision

1. If the Costs Judge were to look only at post Civil Procedure Rules work and kept out of his mind the expenditure occurred before the 26th April 1999, it would be impossible to reach a considered Judgment as to whether the Civil Procedure Rules expenditure was reasonable and proportionate.

2. It was necessary therefore for the Court to look at the total costs both pre and post Civil Procedure Rules in carrying out the global approach required by the proportionality test. It was clear that when the Court of Appeal had regard to the “amount of costs” in issue in Lownds, that the Court of Appeal had in mind all the costs both pre and post Civil Procedure Rules. In this case, it appeared to be disproportionate considering all the factors that £83,500.00 was spent in post Civil Procedure Rules costs to recover damages of £63,000.00. This was the case even without considering the pre Civil Procedure Rules costs. It would follow therefore that Detailed Assessment of the post Civil Procedure Rules costs would be subject to the dual test of reasonableness and necessity.

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