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?

Johnson v Gore Wood & Co, Court of Appeal, 27 January 2004

3 February 2004
The issues

Costs – Part 36 Payments – Payment into Court – an issue based Order for costs.

The facts

The Claimant brought an action against the Defendant firm of Solicitors in respect of borrowings, which he had entered into in reliance on their advice. The Solicitors were found negligent at Trial. However a Payment into Court had been made in 1994, which the Claimant failed to beat. Although the Trial Judge found that the Solicitors had challenged every aspect of the claim, the Claimant had grossly over inflated it. Accordingly, he saw no reason to depart from the basic principle that the Claimant should receive costs to the date of last acceptance of the 1994 payment in and that he should pay the Defendant’s costs thereafter. The Claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which concluded on the issue of quantum, that the Trial Judge had been incorrect in his assessment of the losses. On the basis of those findings, the Claimant was then successful insofar as the 1994 Payment into Court was concerned, but failed in respect of a further Payment into Court made in 2001.

The decision

1. The Defendant had argued that in any event damages should have been assessed not at the date of Trial, but as at the 24th August 2001, the date of the second Payment into Court. Since thereafter the Claimant had been out of his money as a result of his own failure to take the monies in Court rather than any default on the part of the Defendant. This was not correct. The fact of a payment in could be used only on an argument as to costs. If the Solicitors had wished to protect themselves by an argument of the sort advanced before the Court of Appeal, they should have made an open offer which the Judge could have taken into account when assessing damages and which could have been done without making any admission of liability.

2. The Claimant should have his costs down to the last date for acceptance of the payment in on 24th August 2001. As to costs thereafter, the Court had to have regard to a CPR 36.20 (and in particular 36.20(ii) “unless it considers it unjust to do so, the Court will order the Claimant to pay any costs incurred by the Defendant after the latest date on which the payment or offer could have been accepted without needing the permission of the Court”). If the ordinary Order was not to follow, the Court had to be satisfied that it was unjust that the Claimant should bear all the costs following the payment in and the onus was on the Claimant to show this. The Claimant had argued that the Trial could have been greatly curtailed if matters, which the Defendants had continued to dispute, had not been disputed – indeed it had been put before the Court that the Trial of 15 days could have been reduced to 3 days. The ratio of the success at Trial to the payment in, in respect of issues argued before the Judge had altered markedly following the Court of Appeal’s decision as to quantum. Taking account of the way in which the Defendants had conducted the Trial, contesting every issue, the right Order would be for the Claimant to pay 50% of the Defendant’s costs as from the last date on which the Payment into Court could have been accepted.

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