Report comment

Costs of these appeals and assessment hearings will outweigh the costs of the case. However, it's worth it to the successful party - in this case the Defendant - as it gives them the upper hand in future cases.

It puts Claimant's solicitors in a difficult position when they are faced with having to decide which parties to proceed against in cases like this. If they and their client genuinely believe that more than 1 Defendant is culpable this case will make them think twice about pursuing both before digging deeper for conclusive evidence. Defendants insurers will be grateful of that and arguably it's fair to expect full evidence to be gathered prior to proceeding but this is not always so easy.

If, as in this case, there are 2 potentially culpable parties, how far must you go to establish culpability before deciding how to proceed ? If you decide that you do not have enough information to formulate a firm decision regarding culpability apportionment, you will want to proceed against both potentially liable parties. However, if it transpires that one of those Defendants was blame-free after all, the remaining Defendant's representatives will inevitably say that the claim should have been against just one party and therefore could and should have proceeded via the portal and therefore, as in this case, costs should be restricted. Essentially that's what happened here.

This case sends a strong message to Claimants and their solicitors that they need to be fairly sure of their tortfeasors before deciding to bypass the portal. Most of the time this should be achievable but it won't be all of the time.

This comment is lengthy enough (apologies!) without me addressing the invariable challenges which we can expect from Defendants regarding the costs of the Part 47.15 proceedings in cases like this....