Denying the successful Claimant fixed costs: a cautionary tale

Articles

27/02/2020

Hussain (I) & Begum (II) v Aviva Insurance Limited

The rule that costs follow the event is very rarely displaced, except in favour of claimants in fast track claims who are protected by the operation of QOCS. However, in some circumstances, where the Claimant (or the Claimant’s solicitors) have prepared a claim so badly that it affects the level of the damages awarded or the smooth running of the trial, a DJ can (by operation of the general discretion as to costs – see CPR 44) refuse to award fixed costs at all.

In a recent claim, 2 claimants brought claims for whiplash type injuries arising from the same incident. The first claimant required the services of an interpreter, but had not properly certified the translation of the Particulars of Claim. This issue was raised as a positive point in the Defence, but was not dealt with. I raised this as a preliminary point on the morning of trial, and, there being no good reason for the problem still remaining live, the claim was struck out without further ado.

The trial proceeded with only one claimant. Although there were inconsistencies and problems with the evidence as between the various documents in support of the claim, this was mainly down to the ineptitude of the Claimant’s solicitors in obtaining proper medical evidence and preparing the bundle. The claimant himself was not dishonest, and liability had been admitted. The DJ awarded a modest sum for general damages, just above the threshold for the Fast Track.

However, on costs, the situation was quite different. In respect of the costs relating to C1, whose claim had been struck out, the DJ accepted my submission that the solicitors should have to show cause as to why they should not be personally liable for D’s costs (a “wasted costs order”). On C2’s claim, bearing in mind that he had been successful, the DJ made an order for “no order as to costs” save for the court fees. C’s solicitors therefore recovered NO costs at all in respect of either claim, and may well have to pay a wasted costs order to D. Mere success at trial is therefore no guarantee that an inadequate solicitor will recover their costs.

Francesca was instructed by DAC Beachcroft.

Latest News & Events

The Dekagram: 14th September 2026

This week John Schmitt considers JBX v Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EWHC 2294 (KB), a recent High Court decision on a ‘lost years’ claim brought by a child, whilst Bethany Hutchison takes a look at a case on ADR and indemnity costs. Quantifying…

Congratulations to Julia Brechtelsbauer on her appointment as APIL Junior Litigators’ Group Coordinator

We are delighted to share that Julia Brechtelsbauer has been appointed as a Junior Litigators’ Group Coordinator for the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL). In this role, Julia will help facilitate and chair group meetings, encourage engagement among members, contribute ideas and content for…

Burgess v Sikorski: deputyship fees in Fatal Accidents Act claims

By Susanna Bennett The High Court decision of Burgess v Sikorski is novel because the court addressed for the first time whether professional deputyship fees were recoverable in a Fatal Accidents Act case in which two dependants were protected beneficiaries. The answer of Mr Justice…

© Deka Chambers 2026

Search

Portfolio Builder

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

Download    Add to portfolio   
Portfolio
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


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