If the most recently mooted Government reforms as to the financial limit of the Small Claims Track of the County Court go through, litigants will increasingly find themselves litigating within a regime with extremely tight strictures as to the recoverability of litigation costs. As all with experience of such cases will know, there is an exception per CPR 27.14(2)(g) to the effect that further costs may be assessed summarily in cases where one or other party has behaved “unreasonably”… whatever that means?
The Court of Appeal (Longmore and McFarlane LJJ) have provided some clarity to this oft cited but perhaps rarely met test in a joint ruling in the case of Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269, where they refer back to the test for wasted costs in the well-known and now somewhat historic case of Ridehalgh v Horsefield. They urged caution however, reminding the County Court benches that floodgates should not be seen to have opened and that litigants should not be easily deterred from using the Small Claims Track due to the spectre of such findings.
Their Lordships put it best:
“(2) ‘Unreasonable behaviour’ in relation to costs in Small Claims Track appeals
“… conduct cannot be described as unreasonable simply because it leads in the event to an unsuccessful result or because other more cautious legal representatives would have acted differently. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation. If so, the course adopted may be regarded as optimistic and as reflecting in a practitioner’s judgment, but it is not unreasonable,” see Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205, 232F.
Chambers congratulates Adam Dawson upon being awarded an MBE for services to charity and service to the Jewish Community. For over 30 years Adam has been involved in the heart of the Jewish community, leading several charities and organisations. After a year as Chair of…
This week Russell Wilcox and Thomas Clarke examine whether in applications to set aside default judgment there exists such a thing as a ‘co-defendant principle’; essential reading for all practitioners. Co-defendants and Applications to Set Aside: the More the Merrier? In the recent case of…
Introduction On Wednesday 21st of May, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in the long-awaited case of URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21. The judgment was awaited by almost all with an interest in construction law and related professional negligence. BDW…
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR