Abbott v Long, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Advocates

Mr Benjamin Williams (instructed by Armstrong Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr Jamie Clarke (instructed by Plexus Law) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Judges

LADY JUSTICE ARDEN DBE
LORD JUSTICE PATTEN
LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Abbott v. Long

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns an order dated 11 August 2010 made by Judge Marshall QC in the Central London County Court regarding costs following a trial of a road traffic accident claim. The Appellant was driving a motor vehicle when it collided with the Respondent's vehicle at a junction. The trial judge held that the Appellant was entitled to damages but reduced them by 75% due to contributory negligence. The Appellant sought to recover credit hire charges for a substitute vehicle after the accident, initially claiming £48,000 for the hire period from June 2008 to December 2009. During the trial, the Appellant conceded that he could have financed a replacement vehicle, leading the judge to reduce the recoverable credit hire period to six months and the expenses recovered to £8,600. The Appellant challenges the order of no costs made by the judge following the trial.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the judge erred in principle or was perverse in making no order as to costs despite the Appellant's partial success at trial.
Whether the conduct of the Appellant and the credit hire company justified a refusal to award costs to the Appellant.
Whether contributory negligence or failure to mitigate losses should impact the costs award.
The proper application of the court's discretion under CPR 44.3 regarding costs orders.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The Appellant was the successful party on liability and thus entitled to costs.
There was no offer to settle from the Respondent, so a trial was inevitable.
The issues on which the Appellant lost did not cause significant additional costs.
The reduction in credit hire claim was a forensic misjudgement, not dishonesty or misconduct.
No serious misconduct was found that would justify depriving the Appellant of costs.
The contributory negligence issue caused minimal or no distinct costs and should not affect costs entitlement.

Respondent's Arguments

The Respondent claimed to be the winner, having succeeded on the issue of contributory negligence.
The Respondent argued that the Appellant's claim was grossly exaggerated and that the Appellant should be treated as if having filed a counterclaim.
The Respondent highlighted the conduct of the credit hire company as driving the litigation for commercial gain rather than proper litigation principles.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Parkes v Martin [2009] EWCA 883	Costs incidence should not simply mirror the percentage of damages recovered.	The judge referred to this case to reject an automatic proportional reduction of costs based on damages recovered and to support consideration of conduct and other factors.
SCT Finance v Bolton	The heavy burden on appellants to show that a costs decision was outside the judge's discretion.	The court emphasized the wide discretion judges have on costs and discouraged appeals on costs unless clear error is shown.
Straker v Turner Rose	The Court of Appeal's reluctance to interfere with a trial judge's exercise of discretion on costs.	The court emphasized that interference with costs discretion requires the judge to have gone seriously wrong.
Widlake v BAA [2009] EWHC Civ 1256	The possibility of depriving a party of costs as a punitive sanction for egregious misconduct.	The court considered whether the conduct of the Appellant's litigation justified a reduction or denial of costs despite partial success.
Walsh v Singh [2011] EWHC Civ 80	Costs orders must balance conduct-related factors and be proportionate, especially where misconduct did not cause significant cost waste.	The court applied this principle to uphold the judge's decision that the no order as to costs was a proportionate sanction for the Appellant's conduct.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the trial judge's detailed extempore judgment on costs, emphasizing the judge's findings on the conduct of the Appellant and the credit hire company. The judge found the claim grossly exaggerated and that the litigation was driven by the credit hire company as a commercial enterprise, lacking proper regard for principles of mitigating losses and pursuing only sound claims. The judge acknowledged the Appellant's partial success and the absence of a settlement offer, which ordinarily would justify a costs order in the Appellant's favor. However, the judge balanced this against the Appellant's conduct, including failure to mitigate and the inflated credit hire claim, which justified denying costs to either party.

The court also considered the legal framework under CPR 44.3, which grants the court broad discretion in costs decisions, taking into account conduct, partial success, and offers to settle. The appellate court noted the high threshold for overturning a trial judge's costs discretion, requiring a showing of error in principle or perversity, neither of which was demonstrated.

The court agreed that while contributory negligence caused minimal distinct costs, the principal reason for costs reduction was the inflated credit hire claim and the Appellant's conduct in pursuing it. The court rejected the Appellant's argument that the conduct was merely a forensic misjudgment, finding it to be blameworthy and reprehensible conduct as described by the trial judge. The court confirmed that such conduct can justify a proportionate reduction or denial of costs even if it did not cause significant additional costs.

Overall, the court found the judge's decision to make no order as to costs to be carefully reasoned, proportionate, and within the proper exercise of discretion.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court upheld the trial judge's order that there be no order as to costs. This means neither party will recover their costs from the other. The decision reflects the court's balancing of the Appellant's partial success against the blameworthy conduct in pursuing an exaggerated claim driven by the credit hire company. No new precedent was established; the ruling reaffirms the broad discretion judges have in costs matters and the importance of conduct and proportionality in costs awards.