This site uses cookies.

The Scope of Fixed Costs - Andrew Roy, 12 King's Bench Walk

09/07/17. Prescott v Trustees of the Pencarrow 2012 Maintenance Fund, Plymouth CC, District Judge Richards, 12 June 2017.

Introduction

  1. This decision provides important clarification as to the scope of the fixed costs regime (FCR) at CPR Part 45. 

  1. The FCR is a central feature of the personal injury litigation landscape.  Disputes about its scope and application are very common.  There is an inherent incentive for claimant advisers to seek to escape the regime’s restrictions and a corresponding inherent incentive for defendants to seek to block any such escape attempts.  Indeed, the labyrinthine drafting of the rules is itself a reflection of this.      

  1. The propensity for such disputes is reflected by the number of occasions upon which they have required the attention of the higher Courts. See for example Solomon v Cromwell Group Plc [2011] EWCA Civ 1584; [2012] 1 W.L.R. 1048, Broadhurst v Tan [2016] EWCA Civ 94; [2016] 1 W.L.R. 1928, Bird v Acorn Group Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1096; [2017] 1 W.L.R. 1915, Mendes v Hochtief (UK) Construction Ltd [2016] EWHC 976 (QB); [2016] C.P. Rep. 33, Qader v Esure Services Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1109; [2017] C.P. Rep. 10 and Sharp v Leeds City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 33; [2017] C.P. Rep. 19. Such disputes will moreover become all the more common if, as is currently under consideration, the FCR is extended beyond the fast track...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/catenarymedia

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...