Denying the successful Claimant fixed costs: a cautionary tale



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

Recognition for Deka Chambers’ barristers in Best Lawyers 2025

Congratulations to our eleven barristers who have been recognised by their peers in The Best Lawyers in the United Kingdom 2025. Jacob Levy KC, Simon Readhead KC, Edward Faulks KC, Graham Aldous KC, Edward Bishop KC, Andrew Warnock KC, Matthew Chapman KC, Sarah Prager KC,…

Dekinar: Turbulent skies: an update on Montreal Convention claims

In this webinar, Sarah Prager KC will be joined by Nina Harrison, a solicitor in Irwin Mitchell’s International Serious Injury team, for a discussion on: Sarah and Nina will also be answering any questions you may have on the issues raised so please submit your…

A Practical Guide to the Non-Delegable Duty of Care in Healthcare is published

Susanna Bennett has published A Practical Guide to the Non-delegable Duty of Care in Healthcare. This new book is an overview of the law of non-delegable duties of care as they apply to medical care. It is also a source of practical advice and information on…

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.)