Aldred -v- Cham : End of the road but not the end of the matter

Written by:

Sofia Ashraf

Share

Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court denied by Lords Hodge, Briggs and Leggatt on the basis that the application did not give rise to a point of law of general public importance.

Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether the cost of counsel’s advice in relation to settlement parameters in infant, RTA Portal claims was a recoverable disbursement in addition to the fixed costs recoverable pursuant to CPR 45.29C and Table 6B on the basis that it was “reasonably incurred due to a particular feature of the dispute.”

Lord Justice Coulson held that they were not. Further, albeit via obiter dictum, the Court of Appeal confirmed that disbursements which can be said to pertain to a particular characteristic of the Claimant such as their inability to speak English and/or their mental health were equally irrecoverable pursuant to the fixed costs regime and CPR 45.29I.

Unsurprisingly, permission to appeal was sought and, owing to the importance and far reaching consequences of the decision, both APIL and PIBA supported the same. Indeed, both had sought to intervene in the event of permission being granted.

All is not lost though as the appellate panel appear to be of the view that it is appropriate for the matter to be considered by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee.

Like me, I expect most practitioners will be most keen for the CPRC to review the position further.

Sofia Ashraf, St Philips Barrister.

Written by Sofia Ashraf

Share