Khiaban v Beard

A claimant is entitled to define the monetary claim brought before the court. The court cannot increase the claim’s financial value by adding losses that the claimant deliberately omitted. Under CPR 26.8, the court assesses the value of the claim as pleaded, subject to disregarding sums not in dispute and considering whether an overstated claim should be justified. The same approach applies to subrogated and non-subrogated claims. Parties may confine proceedings to liability and a chosen head of loss where this saves expense and remains proportionate.

The claimant’s vehicle was repaired after a road accident. His insurer paid the repair costs, while the claimant remained out of pocket for a £125 insurance excess. The insurers agreed to abide by the court’s decision on liability, leaving the repair costs outside the proceedings.

The claimant issued proceedings for the excess and miscellaneous expenses. The district judge required the claim to be amended to reflect the full repair costs and struck it out when the claimant did not do so. The claimant appealed. The central issue was whether the Civil Procedure Rules entitled the court to increase the value of a claim by including losses that the claimant had chosen not to claim.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal set aside the orders dated 5 November 2001 and 11 February 2002 and reinstated the claim. There was no order as to costs.
2. Per Lord Justice Dyson, the expression claim is context-dependent in the Civil Procedure Rules, but in a road traffic case it means the demand formally made through the court for payment by the defendant. It does not include an amount recoverable under a private agreement between the parties or their insurers.
3. A claimant may choose which heads of loss to include. Omitting an arguable head of loss may ordinarily preclude later proceedings to recover it after judgment on the pleaded claim, applying the principle in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100. That consequence does not impose a positive duty to plead every arguable claim.
4. CPR 16.3 supports defining the amount claimed by reference to the claim form. CPR 26.8 requires the court to consider the financial value of the claim, but does not authorise it to add omitted items. The related practice direction addresses an apparently overstated claim by permitting the claimant to be required to justify the amount; it gives no power to increase the claim.
5. The County Court Fees Order 1999 refers to the sum claimed. It is not a judicial function to extract the maximum possible fee by compelling a claimant to claim more than sought.
6. No distinction was justified between subrogated and non-subrogated claims. The parties could limit the claim to £125, thereby saving expense and furthering the overriding objective. If liability were complex, the court could allocate the case to another track.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal, set aside the district judge’s orders, and reinstated the claim.
• Barnet County Court: District Judge Stephenson struck out the claim for failure to amend it to include the full vehicle repair costs, and later refused to set aside that order.