Report comment

The protocol requires claims to be notified via the portal thus restricting the claimant to fixed costs if successful, unless there are multiple defendants, where the portal is regarded as inappropriate. Heptonstalls did not use the portal as they initially took the view that there were two defendants, British Tissues and these defendants, as successors to the NCB. Those acting for British Tissues denied liability on the basis of a contractual requirement to wear hearing protection and some other factors. Heptonstalls did not advise these defendants of the denial, but seem to have decided not to pursue British Tissues as a result. The case then settled on acceptance of a Part 36 offer from these defendants (of all of £2,500). There was no reference then to fixed costs, an issue raised later. The effect is that the court ruled that the fixed costs regime did not apply (although I have the impression they were a little unimpressed at the quality of the instructions taken and the failure to advise these defendants of the British Tissue denial), but did rule that the protocol should have been used and so costs could be limited by applying the unreasonable conduct provisions of CPR 44.11.
There is a link to the judgment which is reasonably clear. I have necessarily summarized it - those interested in the wider implications may like to read it.