Dominic Regan questions why (five years on) the new proportionality test can still be a mystery
Just published is the appellate decision of Judge Dight, assisted by Master Whalan, in the case of May v Wavell. The claimant has doubled his recoverable costs, overturning the award made by Master Rowley in June 2016 and reported at [2016] EWHC B16 (Costs).
‘The proportionality Rules now guide every detailed or summary assessment of costs on the standard basis. It will no longer be possible for successful parties to recover the absurd levels of costs which previously caused disquiet.’ So said Sir Rupert Jackson in his 2016 book, The Reform of Civil Litigation, at paragraph 3-044.
If only things were so straightforward. Nearly five years on from the introduction of the new proportionality test, we are none the wiser as to its proper application.
The black letter of the law provides, at CPR 44.3 (5), that costs incurred are proportionate if they bear a reasonable relationship to:
- the sums
