header-logo header-logo

14 August 2009 / Richard Scorer
Issue: 7382 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury , Limitation
printer mail-detail

Damage limitation

Claimants cannot afford to lose part of their damages in legal costs, says Richard Scorer

Assuming the claimant is successful, who should pay the legal costs in a personal injury (PI) case? Should costs be paid by the defendant, by the claimant, or should they be apportioned between both and if so in what proportions?

The traditional rule in civil cases in England and Wales is that costs follow the event—the loser pays the winner’s reasonable costs. A successful claimant in a PI case can expect to recover most, if not all of his legal costs from the defendant—the tortfeasor, or, in practice, the tortfeasor’s insurers. This contrasts with the position in employment tribunal cases, for example, where costs are not recoverable inter partes and a successful claimant can expect to forfeit some part of his damages to meet the costs of the claim. The issue has now come to the fore in the debate on Lord Justice Jackson’s review of civil litigation costs. One area put forward for consultation by Jackson LJ is the question of whether a claimant’s damages should be sacrosanct

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll