CC (Warwick) (Deputy District Judge Scott) 9/9/2009
CIVIL PROCEDURE - COSTS
COSTS : MULTI-TRACK : ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS : SMALL CLAIMS TRACK : INFANT SETTLEMENTS : ENTITLEMENT TO FIXED PREDICTIVE COSTS : Pt 8 CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1998 : Pt 45 (II) CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1998 : r.27.14 CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1998
Where CPR Pt 8 proceedings had been issued to obtain the court's approval of agreed damages for a road accident causing injury to three child claimants the defendant was liable for the claimants' costs under CPR Pt 45 (II) as infant claims were to be treated as allocated to the multi-track and were not restricted to small claims track costs.
The claimants (R), who were aged 13, 10 and 8 years' old, had been injured in a road accident for which the defendant (X) admitted liability. General damages were agreed at £400, £300 and £600. CPR CPR Pt 8 proceedings were issued in order to obtain court approval of the settlement. R sought their costs on the fixed predictive basis under CPR Pt 45 (II). X's insurers maintained that they were only entitled to the costs they would have obtained on the small claims track. In support of that proposition the insurer relied upon the case of Aurangzeb v Walker (Costs) Unreported January 22, 2009 Sup Ct Costs Office. That case concerned costs only proceedings; however, reliance was placed upon comments contained within the judgment, which the insurers admitted were obiter, that had proceedings been brought under Pt.8 costs would have been assessed as if the case had been brought on the small claims track. R relied on W (A Child) v Robinson Unreported October 19, 2001 CC (Liverpool), which was cited in the footnotes to CPR r.27.14 in the 2009 edition of the White Book, in which it was held that infant settlements were to be treated as allocated to the multi-track and contended that they were not restricted to small claims track costs.
HELD: The case of Aurangzeb concerned costs only proceedings and not pt.8 proceedings and the comments contained in it in relation to Pt.8 proceedings were obiter, Aurangzeb considered. The case of W and the footnotes in the White Book could be relied on, W considered. It was X's misfortune that they had to bear R's costs and the time was not yet here when those costs would be restricted. Accordingly, costs were awarded as sought in line with Pt.45 (II).
Costs determined
Counsel:
For the claimants: Nicholas Davies
For the defendant: Mr Rees
Solicitors:
For the claimants: Henmans LLP (Oxford)
For the defendant: Wilkinson Woodward (Halifax)
LTL 3/11/2009 Document No. AC0122619 Reproduced by kind permission of Lawtel (www.lawtel.com)