Francis Kendall explains how judges may need to rethink how they assess costs following May v Wavell
- Reviews how May v Wavell clarifies proportionality.
Helpful and further clarification on proportionality has been provided by His Honour Judge Dight when hearing an appeal from the Senior Court Costs Office (SCCO) in the Central London County Court.
In May v Wavell, Master Rowley had initially reduced the £208,000 costs claim to a shade under £100,000 on an item by item basis but then cut the recoverable sum to £35,000 on a proportionality test.
On appeal, the Mays did not challenge the item by item rulings but argued that Master Rowley misdirected himself and misapplied the post-2013 proportionality test. The judge, sitting with Master Whalan, found that Dr May and his wife should be awarded £75,000 in costs after they accepted £25,000 in settlement in a private nuisance dispute.
"[A] perceived lack of focus on the full factors was seen to be a matter of judgement, rather than discretion, and thus the appeal
