Siddiqui v University of Oxford

Claims for personal injury and other forms of loss may fall within CPR r.44.16(2)(b) even where they arise from the same facts, breach of duty and evidence. No divisibility requirement applies. The relevant question is whether the claims concern different types of loss. Once the exception applies, the court must exercise its discretion justly, balancing costs attributable to the non-personal-injury claim against legitimate QOCS protection. Publicity or novelty alone does not create a compelling reason for permission to appeal. Permission should be refused where the proposed grounds have no realistic prospect of success and no other compelling reason is shown.

The claimant’s claim against the defendant university had failed in the substantive judgment, [2018] EWHC 184 (QB). This consequential ruling concerned costs and permission to appeal.

The proceedings included claims for psychiatric injury and for financial loss arising from alleged lost educational and career opportunities. The issues were whether the financial-loss claim engaged CPR r.44.16(2)(b), how the costs discretion should be exercised, and whether permission to appeal should be granted.

1. The QOCS regime applied because the proceedings included a claim for damages for personal injuries.
2. Following Jeffreys v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, the essential question under CPR r.44.16(2)(b) was whether the proceedings contained claims for different forms of loss. The claims need not be divisible and may arise from the same facts, breach of duty or evidential material.
3. The claimant’s alleged loss of educational and career opportunities was a free-standing claim for pure financial loss. The exception therefore applied. The discretion had to be exercised broadly, reflecting time and resources attributable to that claim while preserving legitimate QOCS protection. The claimant was ordered to pay 25% of the defendant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed.
4. Permission to appeal was refused. The proposed grounds concerning limitation, breach of duty, causation and factual errors had no realistic prospect of success. An agreed expert opinion did not bind the judge where it rested on an erroneous factual basis. Publicity and asserted wider public importance did not amount to a compelling reason.
5. Enforcement was stayed until an Appellant’s Notice was lodged, unless otherwise agreed. Continuation of the stay thereafter required agreement or further application.

The ruling followed the substantive High Court judgment in [2018] EWHC 184 (QB), in which the claimant’s claim failed. Permission to appeal from both the substantive judgment and this ruling was refused.