Report comment

If the Claimant's were awarded costs, I hope they don't exceed £24.00 because if so, according to many of the commentators on this site, following the claim for costs in the case of Rezek-Clarke v Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (which so far has attracted 123 comments!) the level of costs is "crazy", "absurd", "ridiculous", "obviously disproportionate" and other such dramatic adjectives.

If in this case costs are awarded in the Claimants' favour in the nominal sum of say £50.00, this would be 25 x damages ! Outrageously disproportionate !

Just goes to remind us that a comparison between damages and costs isn't a guaranteed way of proving that costs are disproportionate.

Proportionality is a subjective concept and one which serves only to generate debate (and anger). It should be removed from the costs rules and from the dictionary forthwith !