Qader & Ors v Esure Services Ltd

Fixed recoverable costs may apply to a low-value road-traffic personal injury claim which began under the RTA Protocol, left the Protocol and Stage 3 Procedure, and proceeded on the multi track. Where the wording of the CPR is clear, the court must apply its ordinary meaning. The overriding objective does not permit the court to disregard or recast clear procedural rules. Jackson LJ’s recommendations are not themselves rules and cannot determine the meaning of subsequently enacted CPR provisions. The costs regime is not incompatible with the right to a fair hearing, particularly because CPR 45.29J provides a safeguard against injustice.

The claimants appealed an order of District Judge Salmon dated 3 June 2015, made in multi-track proceedings arising from a road traffic accident. The claim had begun under the RTA Protocol but had left the portal and proceeded under Part 7 on the multi track. District Judge Salmon held that the fixed costs under CPR 45.29A applied and that costs management did not apply.

The claimants sought permission to appeal and, if granted, challenged that conclusion on purposive interpretation, the overriding objective, and compatibility with section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and article 6 of the Convention. Permission was granted and the appeal was heard at the same time.

1. Permission and disposition. Permission to appeal was granted under both limbs of CPR 52.3(6). The appeal was dismissed.
2. Construction of CPR 45.29A. Section IIIA of Part 45 applies where a claim starts under the RTA Protocol but no longer continues under that Protocol or the Stage 3 Procedure. The rule’s wording is clear and is not confined to claims proceeding on the fast track. Its effect is to impose fixed recoverable costs on qualifying low-value road-traffic personal injury claims proceeding on the multi track.
3. The conclusion is reinforced by CPR 3.12(1)(c), which expressly contemplates multi-track proceedings subject to fixed costs, and by Table 6B, which provides fixed costs where a claim no longer continues under the RTA Protocol. Table 9, by contrast, expressly concerns fast-track trial costs.
4. Purposive interpretation and Jackson reforms. The court rejected the submission that the CPR should be interpreted so as to implement the Jackson reforms. Jackson LJ made recommendations and proposals; the Rules Committee and Parliament made the rules. Adopting the claimants’ construction would require the court to recast the wording of the CPR rather than interpret it.
5. Overriding objective. Because CPR 45.29A is clear, CPR 1.2(b), concerning interpretation in accordance with the overriding objective, was not engaged. The nature of the allegations, including alleged inducement of a collision, did not make the application of fixed costs inherently inconsistent with that objective.
6. Human rights challenge. The fixed-costs regime was not incompatible with section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 or article 6. CPR 45.29J provides a material safeguard against injustice by permitting consideration of additional costs at the end of the proceedings where exceptional circumstances justify it.

1. County Court, Technology and Construction Court, Birmingham: District Judge Salmon ordered that CPR 45.29A fixed costs applied and that costs management did not apply.
2. High Court (Technology and Construction Court): Permission to appeal was granted and the appeal was dismissed.