Lyons v Vauxhall Aftersales

On a second-tier appeal, permission may be granted only where the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or there is another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. An objection to a solicitor’s costs may concern the reasonableness of the client’s choice of solicitor or, separately, whether the solicitor’s charging rates are reasonable for the work undertaken. The Court adjourned the permission application for an inter partes hearing because the proposed challenge to the treatment of routine, geographically local claims raised a potentially important point of practice.

Two defendants sought permission to appeal against orders made by His Honour Judge Cotran in the Wandsworth County Court, upholding decisions that it was reasonable for claimants living and working in Luton to instruct London solicitors in workplace personal injury claims.

The defendants challenged the allowance of London charging rates in routine claims with no obvious connection to London, although they accepted that the claimants were entitled to choose their solicitors. The application therefore concerned whether the proposed issue satisfied the second-tier appeal threshold under section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

1. Permission threshold. The applications were second-tier appeals governed by section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Permission could be given only if the case raised an important point of principle or practice, or there was some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
2. Nature of the proposed challenge. The defendants did not allege any misdirection in the governing legal principle. Their argument was that, although a litigant may choose any solicitor, it does not necessarily follow that the chosen solicitor may recover rates higher than those reasonably payable for equivalent work by a competent local firm. The question was whether London rates were reasonable in straightforward claims involving parties, witnesses and experts based in or near Luton.
3. Existing guidance. The court noted the approach in Wraith v Sheffield Forgemasters; Truscott v Truscott [1998] 1 WLR 132 and Sullivan v Cooperative Insurance Society [1999] Costs LR 158, including the distinction between the litigant’s freedom to choose a lawyer and the objective assessment of costs.
4. Disposition. Lady Justice Hale had doubts whether volume of similar claims alone amounted to an important point of practice. Nevertheless, the argument had been presented attractively and with greater clarity than below. The application was adjourned for an inter partes hearing, with the appeal to follow if permission was granted. Mr Justice Astill agreed for the reasons given by Lady Justice Hale. Costs were costs in the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Applications for permission to appeal from the Wandsworth County Court were adjourned for an inter partes hearing, with the appeal to follow if permission was granted.
• Wandsworth County Court: His Honour Judge Cotran upheld decisions of District Judge Gittens that it was reasonable for the claimants to instruct London solicitors.
• District Judge Gittens: Held that the claimants’ choice of London solicitors was reasonable and assessed the recoverable costs accordingly.