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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll