Multi Track allocation remains decisive to the disapplication of the Fixed Costs rules - Andrew Ratomski, Temple Garden Chambers
15/04/25. Laura Attersley v UK Insurance Limited [2025] EWHC 884 (KB)
Date of judgment: 11 April 2025
This claim arose from unremarkable circumstances: a claim for personal injury consisting of what at first appeared to whiplash injuries arising from a road traffic accident on 9 March 2018. The issue which the High Court grappled with, on appeal from the County Court at Southend, was whether the Claimant who had accepted a valid Part 36 offer was entitled only to fixed costs or costs on the standard basis up to the point of expiry of the relevant Part 36 offer?
Facts and procedural background
The claim had started under the RTA Protocol with a CNF giving a value up to £10,000 but exited as liability was (initially) disputed. On 4 March 2021 the Claimant then issued claiming up to £150,000 in damages and enclosed three medical reports. The Defendant made a Part 36 offer of £45,000 pre-allocation. Liability was later admitted. After allocation to the Multi Track the following year, the Claimant accepted the Part 36 offer (out of time).
A case management conference was held on 5 January 2022 to determine allocation and the Claimant was given permission to rely on medical experts in six disciplines. It was agreed that Multi Track allocation was appropriate.
On 18 May 2022 the Defendant applied to amend its Defence to allege fundamental dishonesty and a hearing was listed for 1 August 2022. Before that hearing, the Claimant accepted the Part 36 offer and a dispute as to the costs regime arose with the Circuit Judge limited the Claimant to Fixed Costs.
Issue
The Claimant’s case, relying on rule 45.29B of the “old” Part 45 of the CPR, was that she was entitled to her reasonable costs on the standard basis up to the expiry of the relevant offer. In contrast the Defendant contended, relying on rule 36.20, that in these circumstances the Claimant was only entitled to her fixed costs. The real issue was whether Quader v Esure [2017] 1 WLR 1924 had already decided the point and the effect of rule 45.29B.
Plainly at the time of acceptable, this was a case unquestionably allocated to the Multi Track but when the...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Photofex-AT
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
