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?

Woodings v British Telecommunications Plc, City of London County Court, 25 March 2003

25 March 2003
The issues

Costs – small claim – allocation – acoustics shock

The facts

A group of Claimants brought actions in respect of an alleged acoustic shock, which had been caused by the equipment provided to them by the Defendant. (Loud, shrill noise through the apparatus worn). All the claims were settled shortly after the Defence, for damages ranging between £500.00 and £750.00. They had not been allocated to any track at the time of settlement. The Claimants sought costs generally and the Defendant argued that these were claims that would have been allocated to the Small Claims Track and that recovery of costs should be limited accordingly.

The decision

1. On allocation, bearing in mind that liability had not been admitted, it is likely that the Court would have ordered a joint Trial on the issue of liability and allocation to the Multi Track on the grounds of the technical nature of the claim and the evidence required.

2. Expense could have been spared if the Defendants had dealt with the claims in a more rational manner.

3. The Defendants having acted unreasonably should pay costs on the standard basis pursuant to CPR 27.14 (2)(d) (the power in respect of matters allocated to the Small Claims Track for the Court to Order further costs beyond those permitted by the Track to be paid by a party who had behaved unreasonably). NB it was conceded by the Claimant that where a case settled before allocation, if it would ordinarily have been allocated to the Small Claims Track then the successful Claimant’s claim for costs should be limited accordingly)

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