Jefferson v National Freight Carriers Plc

Costs on the standard basis must be both reasonably incurred and proportionate to the matters in issue. Proportionality is especially important in modest fast-track claims. The court must consider all relevant circumstances, including the value and importance of the claim, its complexity, the conduct of the parties, the work required, the skill involved and the time spent. Legal representatives have a heavy duty to plan and conduct modest litigation economically. A summary assessment may be appropriate, but where a substantial reduction is made the judge should explain the reasoning sufficiently. Fixed fast-track trial costs apply unless the relevant exception permits an additional amount.

Derek Jefferson brought a successful workplace-injury claim against National Freight Carriers Plc. The claim was limited to £5,000, and judgment was entered for general damages of £1,750 and agreed special damages of £525.74. The judge summarily assessed costs at £3,500, substantially below the sum claimed in the schedule.

The claimant appealed the quantum of costs, arguing that the assessment had been conducted too summarily and that the judge should have considered a Part 36 offer. The central issues were the proper application of proportionality, the fast-track costs rules and the adequacy of the summary assessment.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sum of £3,500 was within the range of acceptable awards, and the Court declined to interfere with the judge’s discretionary assessment.
2. Under Parts 44.3–44.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, costs assessed on the standard basis must be reasonably incurred, reasonable in amount and proportionate to the matters in issue. Any doubt is resolved in favour of the paying party.
3. In applying proportionality, the court must have regard to all the circumstances. Relevant matters include the parties’ conduct, efforts to settle, the value and importance of the claim, complexity or novelty, the skill and responsibility involved, time spent, and the place and circumstances of the work.
4. Proportionality is particularly important in fast-track litigation of modest value. Representatives must assess the likely value, importance and complexity at the outset, plan the necessary work and use an appropriate level of fee earner. A successful litigant must recover costs sufficient to bring the claim, but only where the litigation has been conducted proportionately.
5. Part 46.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 fixed recoverable fast-track trial costs at £350 for a claim valued up to £3,000. Part 46.3 permitted an additional £250 where the court considered it necessary for a legal representative, in addition to the advocate, to attend the trial. That additional amount was recoverable here.
6. The judge had dealt with the assessment too summarily, and greater reasoning would have been desirable given the substantial reduction. Nevertheless, the appellate court, having considered the matter in greater detail, found no sufficient basis for concluding that the judge’s approach or result was wrong.
7. The Part 36 offer was not drawn to the judge’s attention. The judge was not required to enquire about it, and its relevance was doubtful because the offer exceeded the damages recovered.
8. The Court observed that the appeal should ordinarily have been brought before a High Court judge rather than the Court of Appeal, absent a special order. It reconstituted itself as a Divisional Court of the High Court if necessary. The court’s comments on VAT were expressly confined to the circumstances of the case.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal and upheld the summary assessment of costs at £3,500.
• Lower court: His Honour Judge Fawkes assessed the claimant’s costs summarily on 17 April and ordered payment of £3,500.