Lyons v Vauxhall Aftersales

On a second 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. A complaint about solicitors’ hourly rates in costs assessment will not satisfy that threshold merely because similar cases may arise. The reasonableness of instructing solicitors from outside the locality, and the appropriate recoverable rates, are fact-sensitive matters. They must be determined case by case, having regard to the circumstances of the particular litigation. The court should not give general guidance imposing a rule that a claimant must instruct solicitors near the accident, workplace or residence.

Two renewed applications for permission to bring second appeals were heard together because they raised the same issue. The underlying claims concerned personal injuries suffered at work in Luton. The successful claimants had instructed solicitors based in Wimbledon through their union, and the costs judges allowed charges at Outer London rates.

The defendants challenged the rates as unreasonable, contending that straightforward claims could have been handled by local Luton solicitors at lower rates. The district judge and Judge Cotran applied the principles in Wraith v Sheffield Forgemasters Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 132 and Sullivan v The Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd [1999] 2 Costs LR 158. The central issue was whether the proposed appeals satisfied section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

1. Applications refused. The Court of Appeal, comprising the President of the Family Division, Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Kay, unanimously refused both renewed applications for permission to appeal. Costs were agreed at £5,800, payable by the appellants.
2. Section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 prevents the hearing of a second appeal unless the court considers that it raises an important point of principle or practice, or that there is another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
3. The proposed appeals did not identify such a point. The contention that it was objectively unreasonable for a claimant in ordinary personal injury litigation to instruct solicitors outside the general area of the accident, workplace or residence was not a suitable general rule.
4. The principles in Wraith v Sheffield Forgemasters Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 132 and Sullivan v The Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd [1999] 2 Costs LR 158 required the reasonableness of the costs decision to be assessed on the particular facts. The fact that local solicitors were available, or that union practice had led to the instruction of London solicitors, could not determine every case.
5. Different customary charging rates may apply in nearby areas because of differing overheads. The court could not properly provide the requested general guidance. The applications therefore sought, in substance, a rehearing of distinct costs matters rather than determination of an important point of practice.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused two renewed applications for permission to bring second appeals.
• Wandsworth County Court: His Honour Judge Cotran refused appeals from the costs decisions of District Judge Gittens on 23 March 2001.
• District Judge Gittens: assessed the successful claimants’ recoverable costs, allowing the challenged solicitors’ rates.