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?

Woollard v Fowler, Weston-Super-Mare County Court, 5 June 2006

5 June 2006
The issues

CPR Part 45 – fixed costs – disbursements – Mobile Doctors Limited – whether fees charged by Mobile Doctors Limited were recoverable.

The facts

Two Claimants brought claims for personal injury following a road traffic accident on 20th October 2003 for which the Defendant admitted liability. The First Claimant’s claim was settled for £1,336.21 and the Second Claimant’s claim for £4,000.00. The Defendant’s insurers paid the Claimant’s costs which were dealt with under CPR Part 45, the fixed costs regime, save for the costs incurred by the Second Claimant for the full amount charged by the medical reporting agency for providing her solicitor with a medical report and medical records as a disbursement under the fixed costs regime of Part 45. From the Detailed Assessment Master Seager Berry sitting as a Deputy District Judge allowed the fees charged by the doctors and hospital but refused to allow the recovery of the fees charged by the medical reporting agency.

The decision

As had been said in Butt v Nizami the intention underlying CPR 45.7 to 14 was to provide an agreed scheme of recovery which was certain and easily calculated. Fixed levels might over reward in some case and under reward in others but were regarded as fair when taken as a whole. In that case the Judge had agreed that disbursements were different from fixed costs but he had rejected any idea that it was anomalous that 45.10 required a different approach. The use of medical agencies had been widespread for a number of years. In cases outside the predictable costs regime the system had operated without undue difficulty provided the fees claimed had been reasonable and proportionate. Those fees had, by general and established custom, been treated as disbursements. The advent of the predictable costs regime did not mean that the Court’s approach to such fees should alter so that they were treated in a different way under the predictable costs regime. One of the difficulties with the proposition relied upon by the paying party was that until a case had been settled it was not known whether the predictable costs regime would apply. One of the underlying objectives in the CPR and Civil Procedure Reforms was the attainment of certainty and transparency in relation to costs. If the paying party’s arguments were correct they would serve to extend uncertainty in relation to medical agency fees until the very last moment which would impede settlement or lead to increase costs.

Appeal allowed.

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