Widlake v BAA Ltd, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr Guy Sims (instructed by Messrs Ward Gethin) for the appellant
Mr Alex Glassbrook (instructed by Messrs Vizards Wyeth) for the respondent

Judges

LORD JUSTICE WARD
LADY JUSTICE SMITH
LORD JUSTICE WILSON

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Widlake v. BAA Ltd

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, employed as a security guard by Company A at an airport, suffered a fall down a staircase on 12th July 2004 caused by a loose rider step. Liability was not disputed. The Plaintiff sustained bruising and claimed ongoing lower back pain attributed to the accident, asserting either aggravation of pre-existing degenerative changes for about twelve months or an advancement of inevitable deterioration by five years. The Defendant contested the extent and consequences of the injury and the value of special damages claimed. The case proceeded to trial where the judge assessed damages at a modest sum but ordered the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's costs. The Plaintiff appealed this costs order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Plaintiff's exaggeration and concealment of prior medical history justified an order that she pay the Defendant's costs despite recovering damages.
The extent to which the Plaintiff's conduct, including failure to negotiate or make counter offers under Part 36, should influence the costs order.
The proper application of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) regarding costs, particularly CPR 36 and CPR 44, in cases involving exaggerated claims and dishonest conduct.
Whether the judge erred in characterising the Plaintiff's conduct as an abuse of the court's process on a grand scale and in imposing punitive costs consequences.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The judge erred in relying heavily on the precedent from Molloy v Shell UK Ltd.
Costs should only be disallowed to the extent attributable to the exaggeration, not wholly denied.
The Defendant should have protected itself better by making a more advantageous Part 36 offer.
The Plaintiff had a genuine claim and presented it realistically at trial, so the Defendant should pay costs as the Plaintiff recovered more than the offer.

Respondent's Arguments

The Plaintiff's exaggeration permeated key issues of the claim, including the acceleration of back pain and severity of suffering.
The exaggeration was deliberate and justified a punitive order for costs against the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff made no settlement offer or counter-proposal and reduced the claim only shortly before trial, so costs consequences should reflect this conduct.
The judge's discretion in ordering costs against the Plaintiff should not be interfered with.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Molloy v Shell UK Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1272	Dishonest exaggeration of claims can justify costs orders against claimants; abuse of court process.	Judge relied on Molloy to characterize Plaintiff's conduct as an abuse, but appellate court found this an overstatement and cautioned against broad application.
Painting v University of Oxford [2005] EWCA Civ 161	Exaggeration as a central issue can influence costs orders; failure to negotiate impacts costs.	Referenced to show that exaggerated claims and lack of negotiation justify costs against claimant; court considered degree of exaggeration and conduct.
Shah v Wassim Ul-Haq [2009] EWCA Civ 542	No general rule to dismiss entire claim for dishonest exaggeration; damages awarded for genuine injury despite exaggeration.	Used to caution against dismissing whole claims for exaggeration; emphasized awarding damages for proven loss despite dishonesty.
Jackson v Ministry of Defence [2006] EWCA Civ 46	Claimant successful if damages awarded and payment into court beaten; exaggeration affects costs but does not negate success.	Supported view that claimant who recovers damages and beats payment into court is successful despite exaggeration; costs reductions serve as disincentive.
Hall & ors v Stone [2007] EWCA Civ 1354	Partial success and exaggeration assessed factually; exaggeration alone does not warrant costs reduction if claimant successful.	Distinguished from cases where exaggeration was central; here claimant acquitted of dishonesty and entitled to costs except for certain early reports.
Straker v Tudor Rose [2007] EWCA Civ 368	Costs awarded based on who pays whom; exaggeration and failure to comply with protocols can reduce costs.	Endorsed focus on identifying paying party; disapproved claimant's pre-action conduct but allowed costs with reduction.
Blakes Estates Ltd v Government of Montserrat [2005] UKPC 46	Exaggeration relevant to whether costs caused by claim preparation should be reduced; discretion exercised judicially.	Referenced for principle that exaggeration can justify partial reduction of costs proportional to wasted expense.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the facts and found that the Plaintiff deliberately concealed a prior history of back pain from her medical experts in an attempt to exaggerate her claim. However, this conduct did not reach the level of the gross dishonesty found in Molloy. The court noted that medical experts had access to records and disagreed on the extent of injury acceleration, with no criticism of the expert opinion that supported some acceleration.

Applying the Civil Procedure Rules, particularly CPR 44.3 and CPR 36, the court emphasized that costs discretion requires consideration of all circumstances, including conduct such as exaggeration and failure to negotiate. The court distinguished between exaggeration as an allegation relevant to the issue of damages and the overall success of the claimant.

The court acknowledged that exaggeration caused unnecessary costs and that the Defendant was entitled to protect itself by making Part 36 offers, which it failed to do adequately. The Plaintiff's failure to negotiate or make counter offers was also considered negatively.

Balancing these factors, the court concluded that although the Plaintiff was the successful party having beaten the payment into court, the dishonesty and exaggeration warranted some penalty. However, the Defendant's failure to make a proper Part 36 offer reduced the justification for an adverse costs order against the Plaintiff.

Ultimately, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the previous order requiring the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's costs and instead made no order for costs, reflecting a fair balance between the parties' conduct and the outcomes.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL, set aside the order requiring the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's costs, and made NO ORDER FOR COSTS in respect of the costs below.

This decision means that despite findings of deliberate exaggeration and dishonesty by the Plaintiff, the costs consequences were mitigated by the Defendant's failure to make a sufficiently advantageous Part 36 offer and the Plaintiff's ultimate success in recovering damages. No new precedent was established, but the ruling clarifies the nuanced application of CPR rules on costs where exaggerated claims and settlement conduct intersect, emphasizing a balanced exercise of judicial discretion.