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?

Norman v Knowles Stourbridge, County Court, 6 November 2003

24 November 2003
The issues

Costs – RTA – each party equally to blame.

The facts

The Claimant was injured in a road traffic accident on the 19th April 2002 and claimed damages. The District Judge apportioned liability equally and gave Judgment to the Claimant for half of the agreed damages. The Defendant had not made a Part 36 Payment. The Judge ordered that each party should bear its own costs on the grounds that the Claimant’s evidence at Trial had differed from his pleaded case and his pre-action letter of claim. On this basis, he decided to depart from the general rule that costs should follow the event. The Claimant appealed on the basis that the judge had erred in the exercise of his discretion.

The decision

It was not generally for an Appellate Court to substitute its own Judgment for that of the Court below. The District Judge had been best placed to take a view as to costs. It was for the Claimant to persuade the Court that the District Judge had exercised his discretion wrongly.
The Judge had considered the relevant factors and the Order was within his discretion.

Appeal dismissed.


For further information please contact Marie Macfarlane at mariemacfarlane@veitchpenny.co.uk or Harry Steinberg of Counsel at Steinberg@12KBW.co.uk.

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