Orman v Cihangir & Octagon Insurance



Judgment was given by Her Honour Judge Baucher sitting at the County Court at Central London on 15th May 2015. It considered the relatively new provisions in respect of qualified one-way costs shifting (“QOCS”) and fundamental dishonesty.

The matter related to a road traffic accident. The Claimant had discontinued his claim on the day of trial. Qualified one-way costs shifting applied. On the day of discontinuance, the Defendant’s costs were assessed and ordered to be paid by the Claimant (with such order not to be enforced without the permission of the court: Rule 44.14).

The Second Defendant sought its costs under the exception in Rule 44.16(1): costs “may be enforced to the full extent of such orders with the permission of the court where the claim is found on the balance of probabilities to be fundamentally dishonest”. It argued that the issue of fundamental dishonesty ought to be determined by the court at a hearing at which the Claimant could be cross-examined (the “determination hearing”) under paragraph 12.4(c) of Practice Direction 44.

The court rejected the suggestion that a determination hearing could not be held where Rule 44.16(1) was not already engaged (an argument based upon the first line of paragraph 12.4). It did, however, accept that a determination hearing must be ordered after an application under the Practice Direction and such a hearing would not automatically be listed after discontinuance just because the Defendant had made an allegation of fundamental dishonesty.

The Claimant argued that such a hearing would be disproportionate in terms of time and cost. Further, he noted that the starting point in the CPR is that there is no determination hearing unless it is directed, and there was nothing in the instant case which warranted a listing. The Claimant said he had discontinued because of procedural problems (including the failure to obtain permission to rely on certain evidence), not because of any underlying dishonesty.

The Second Defendant argued that the Claimant had avoided the risk of a liability for costs by discontinuing and without a hearing the Second Defendant would be deprived of an opportunity to recover its costs. It further argued that a hearing would involve only cross-examination of the Claimant and therefore it would not have a lengthy time estimate.

The court had regard to its duties to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost, to do justice between the parties and to ensure that its resources are used properly. It determined that a hearing should be directed, because of the value of the unenforceable order for costs (just under £27,000) and because, in the particular circumstances of this case, it would not involve a lengthy hearing. The matter was listed for a determination hearing, with the Claimant and the Defendant’s engineering expert directed to attend to give live evidence.

William Dean was instructed by Andrew Edwards of Nesbit Law Group L.L.P.

Featured Counsel

William Dean

Call 2011

Latest News & Events

The Dekagram: 20th May 2024

We trust that our readers have been enjoying the Spring sunshine; the team have spent their time in the sun wisely, reading cases so you don’t have to. First we noted a decision which considers the interplay between English and Scottish guardianship; secondly we read…

The Dekagram: 13th May 2024

Last week brought the news that the Australian airline Qantas and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have agreed to resolve their dispute over cancelled flights by asking the court to impose a $100 million fine, together with an undertaking by the airline to pay…

Max Melsa appears in Court of Appeal in Re D (Children: Interim Care Order: Hair Strand Testing) [2024] EWCA Civ 498

Max Melsa represented the children, through their Children’s Guardian, in the first case to reach the Court of Appeal specifically dealing with the interpretation of Hair-Strand Tests in care proceedings. The appeal was made by the mother against the interim separation of three children from…

Subscribe to our mailing list

Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR

© Deka Chambers 2024


Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Title Type CV Email

Remove All


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)