0370 270 6000

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

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