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?

France v McVeigh, Doncaster County Court, 26 June 2003

27 October 2003
The issues

Costs – base costs – Application to cap Claimant’s base costs.

The facts

The Claimant brought an action for personal injuries against the Defendant in respect of a road traffic accident. At an early stage in the litigation, the Defendants on the instructions of Insurers made an Application to put a cap in the Claimant’s base costs. Both parties agreed that the claim was suitable for the Fast Track. The Claimant’s costs estimate at conclusion of the case given in the Allocation Questionnaire was £9,000.00. The Defendant made an Application to place a cap on the base costs, the Claimant having the benefit of a Conditional Fee Agreement.

The decision

1. Bearing in mind the overriding objective, the Court had to be confident that placing a cap on parties’ costs would preserve an equal balance. It would be unfair to place a cap, if to do so would mean that the parties are no longer on an equal footing.

2. There was nothing before the Court suggesting that the Claimant’s Solicitors were seeking to inflate their costs.

3. Applications of this sort created delay and took up Court time. It would be disproportionate to spend time considering costs on a theoretical basis at an early stage in the litigation when the costs would in any event be subject to assessment at the end.

Application dismissed.

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