Report comment

This is a prime example of the value of good Replies in provisional assessment. Having read the judgment I can only say that the sols served some pretty weak Replies on proportionality. The classic acumension line of "a private paying client would never spend ££ to recover ££" worked wonders here. The line is quoted at para 15 of the judgment so was obviously a factor in the decision. Acumension always "ignore" the fact that it's irrelevant what a private client would pay because 1) it wasn't a private client and 2) the client doesn't throw away ££ to get ££ back, he has the first ££ recovered/assessed as costs. The judgment doesn't mention a reply to this argument, though the replies appear to address 44.3(5).

Para 26 reinforces the need for clarity on additional liabilities in proportionality as the judgment goes against recent cases of King v Basildon and Murrells v Cambridge where Masters Rowley and Brown both said that additional liabilities do not factor into proportionality as per the old CPD. Inconsistency within the SCCO never mind the rest of the country.

As for the ATE premium, I'm curious to see if DAS appeal this. Even though £31976 is high to cover £20k of disbursements, the judgment makes it clear that the staged premium should actually have been claimed at £22255 and no explanation was given for the error. Simons distinguished the Rogers case on the grounds that the proportionality test has changed yet ignored King and Murrells cases which apply the rationale from the old proportionality test. Furthermore, the Defendant cannot object to the second staging given that they only admitted liability after proceedings were issued.

Lastly, the judgment makes no mention of costs offers. For all we know, the Defendant had offered only £20k so still lost the assessment however the insurer pushed this to PAH to recover their full premium (without noticing that it had been claimed incorrectly).